Alzheimer鈥檚 and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. We will consider two petitions together: PE1480, by Amanda Kopel on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer's awareness campaign, on Alzheimer鈥檚 and dementia awareness; and PE1533, by Jeff Adamson on behalf of Scotland against the care tax, on abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Members have a note from the clerk on the committee鈥檚 previous consideration of the petitions and submissions from the Scottish Government and both petitioners.
With regard to the Government鈥檚 response, I see what it is saying about Professor Bell鈥檚 work, but there is other work out there on the care tax and the charges. I am sure that Professor Bell did not pick that 拢300 million figure out of thin air, but I am not entirely sure that it relates exactly to the issue that we are talking about. It is not necessarily the case that information that you collect on one subject is relevant to the specifics of another.
I would like to get back if not directly to Professor Bell then certainly to the Government to ask about the basis of that figure, because there are questions that need to be asked about it. We have seen information from Scotland against the care tax in particular, and I have spoken to that organisation regularly, and I think that the figures that we are talking about here are quite wide of the mark compared with what that organisation is specifically asking for.
As I have said, I am not querying Professor Bell鈥檚 拢300 million figure. I am just not entirely sure that it relates specifically to this issue and therefore using it as the basis on which to respond to the petition is questionable. Do colleagues have other comments on the information that we have?
Clarification is necessary.
We need clarification, because of the quite significant disparity in the figures. I know that we always get the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others chipping in with statistics and that we always get best-case and worst-case scenarios, but very seldom have I seen figures that are so divergent. In this case, it is suggested that the costs could be as little as 拢14 million or as much as 拢300 million. Something does not add up with those statistics. As I have said, I am not sure that the figures that we have been given are absolutely relevant to the point that has been made, and I would like to get some clarification around them.
We should definitely write to Professor Bell to ask what criteria he is using and how he has come up with those figures, because, as you have said, there is a wide difference between the two sets of costs. I would like the committee to do that.
Members appear to agree. We will ask Professor Bell that question, and we will also continue with the petitions and bring them back at a later date.
Concessionary Travel (War Veterans) (PE1549)
PE1549, by Alan Young, is on concessionary travel passes for war veterans. Members have a note from the clerk on the committee鈥檚 previous consideration of the petition and submissions from Transport for London and the petitioner. The petitioner has seen Transport for London鈥檚 response and has identified a number of questions in relation to it.
I do not think that we ever believed that we could say that the situation in London exactly matched what the petitioner is asking for, but he has identified issues around eligibility and other areas that I think we could ask Transport for London for more information on. We know that we are comparing apples and oranges, but that does not mean that we cannot learn from what Transport for London is doing with its Oyster card and see how it relates to our concessionary travel scheme. Do members agree to ask those questions?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Abuse (Mandatory Reporting) (PE1551)
PE1551, by Scott Pattinson, is on mandatory reporting of child abuse. Members have received the report on the previous consideration and submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioners.
I appreciate that, at a Scottish level, these things can be double-edged and that there are views about whom the matter concerns. However, given the Prime Minister鈥檚 commitments on what is going to be done, it might be worth writing to the UK Government to find out more about that. Other than that, I would not, given the potentially unhelpful and dangerous consequences of changing the legislation, be inclined to venture further in that direction.
I do not think that we should close the petition. I agree with Kenny MacAskill that we should find out the UK Government鈥檚 position on the matter so that we know that our decision is based on the full information that is available to us.
Members indicated agreement.
Disabled-friendly Housing (PE1554)
PE1554, by Jacq Kelly on behalf of Leonard Cheshire Disability, is on improving the provision of disabled-friendly housing. Members have received a note on the committee鈥檚 previous consideration of the petition and submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner.
I think that we have done what we can with this petition. We have not arrived at the outcome that the petitioner wanted, but we have consulted those who have an interest in the matter. It seems to me that, as we approach the election period, it is for people to raise the issue and make it a matter of public policy. Beyond that, I do not think that there is anything that we can do, apart from sending letters that would not take matters further.
There is a degree of understanding for this petition鈥擨 certainly support its intention鈥攂ut the question is how we can get to a situation in which what the petitioner is asking for can be delivered. I personally believe that we should be building houses that are fit for disabled people and that we have to make that commitment. However, I do not think that we will achieve that by taking this petition further forward. All we can do is support the petition鈥檚 intentions as individual 成人快手 so that we can get these types of issues addressed by political parties and ensure that they are party policy.
In a members鈥 business debate in Parliament on the lack of housing in Scotland and the type of housing that is available, it was noted that many rooms are small and inadequate and that there are not enough large houses, and there was a suggestion that the Government should consider having percentages for the types of houses that there should be. We could consider having a certain percentage of houses that are specifically designed or adapted to be user-friendly for people with disabilities, and it might be worth going back to the Government to ask whether it has any thoughts in that regard.
At the end of the day, people need these facilities and redesigning houses is an expensive way of doing things. It would be better if the Government had a policy of building a certain number of houses that are suitable for people with disabilities.
I do not disagree with you. This is a good petition that raises an important subject. It was Alex Johnstone who secured the members鈥 business debate that you have referred to, and there was a lot of discussion of the issues during it, with the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment responding.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill. We know the Scottish Government鈥檚 view on the issue. We as individuals should, with the support of organisations such as Leonard Cheshire Disability, now try to put together party policies on it, because that is how change will come about. We have had the Government鈥檚 response and, to be perfectly honest, I do not think that we are going to get a different one. We now have to take a view on whether its answer is acceptable or whether, in a more positive vein, we can do something to address Leonard Cheshire Disability鈥檚 concerns.
11:15
Do we have any information on the number of houses for people with disabilities that we would require annually? That is the sort of evidence that any political party looking to take up this cause would need.
There are organisations out there that have an idea. Off the top of my head, I remember a figure of one in 10 new builds being cited, but I am not entirely sure that there is a general consensus on that among the organisations. [Interruption.] I am advised by the clerk that a note in the briefing paper gives some indication of the figure. There are organisations that have produced an analysis of what will be needed in the future, but it is up to us to see whether we can get that information.
As Kenny MacAskill has pointed out, we have to decide whether we can take the petition any further. We have established the Government鈥檚 position on it. It is not the outcome that the petitioners wanted, but sometimes we have to accept that we have exhausted the questions that we can ask the Government. If we are not happy with the response, it falls to the rest of us to do something about it.
It is sad that the Government has taken that position, given that we know that there is a need out there. I think that the Government is morally obliged to try to reduce the gap.
In the minister鈥檚 response to the committee, he says:
鈥淟ocal housing and Planning authorities are responsible for assessing all housing requirements in their areas and planning to meet those through their Local Housing Strategies ... and Local Development Plans鈥.
How accountable are local authorities for their local housing strategies and local development plans? It is fine to say that the local authorities are responsible for delivering them, but how can we check whether they are or not?
We have previously discussed the fact that some disability groups feel that greater consultation at a local level might help identify and deliver what is needed at the local development planning stage. One of the local authorities in the area that I represent, North Lanarkshire Council, is about to go through its local development plan, and I am not sure whether it will consult disability groups or look at the number of houses鈥攖he one in 10 new builds鈥攖hat would be required.
I am keen to write back to the minister, asking how local development plans are tested. Given that such plans are approved by ministers, it would be useful to find out how ministers test them against the demand that we think exists and how local authorities show the demand levels. Like all committee members, I want to ensure that that provision does not become simply the responsibility of social landlords and the housing association and housing co-operative sector. The responsibility should be on all housing developers. Unfortunately, we all too often find that local authorities, social landlords and housing associations are the ones who are left to pick up the tab for adaptations or the building of appropriate housing for people with disabilities.
I suggest, therefore, that we write to the minister, asking for clarification of how the Government tests whether local authorities include that housing demand in their local development plans and their consideration of future developments.
That is a good question, and I take the point on board. I do not think that it will change the outcome of the petition, but we can certainly establish just how the Government does that. I am more than happy to keep the petition open until we get that answer. Is that fine with members?
Members indicated agreement.
Sewage Sludge (PE1563)
The next petition is PE1563, by Doreen Goldie, on behalf of Avonbridge and Standburn community council, on sewage sludge spreading. Members have a note from the clerks on our previous consideration of the petition and submissions from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the petitioner. What do members think?
We should press the Government on this long-standing issue a wee bit more. It has been an issue since the Parliament was re-established. The petitioners and the committee are entitled to know what is happening, so it would be useful to press the Government.
We can get back to the Government on the issue, if everyone is agreed.
We also need to press SEPA. I welcome the response from SEPA, which gives a list of the organisations that currently operate sludge production and treatment facilities. However, SEPA states that the list does not include details of certain companies, and it sets out what those are in three bullet points. I am particularly concerned about
鈥渃ompanies involved in alternative end uses of sludge such as incineration or landfill鈥.
In my area, landfill is a particular issue and licences for landfill dumping of sewage are a concern to residents and others. That is also a concern for residents of the Avonbridge area, where the petition was raised. There is a concern about what some would describe as indiscriminate landfill dumping of sludge. It would be useful to get an indication of how widespread the use of landfill dumping is in Scotland and the proximity of that to residential areas. The issue might come back to haunt us if we do not start to deal with it.
I am happy for us to go back to SEPA with those questions, if members agree. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Violent Reoffenders (Sentencing) (PE1565)
The next petition is PE1565, by James Dougall, on whole of life sentences for violent reoffenders. Members have notes on the petition so far and the submission from the Lord Justice Clerk. What do members think that we need to do with the petition?
I am minded to close it, on the basis that it has gone to the Scottish Sentencing Council. If the petitioner does not like the Sentencing Council鈥檚 view, it is a matter of public policy鈥攁s I said regarding a previous matter鈥攁nd it might very well form part of various parties鈥 law and order manifestos for the 2016 election. It seems to me that the Sentencing Council is the place for the petition to go. Either the council satisfies the petitioner or it does not and, if it does not, by the time that the petition came back here, all that we would do is say that it is an election issue.
Okay. Do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
National Service Delivery Model (Warfarin Patients) (PE1566)
The next petition is PE1566, by Mary Hemphill and Ian Reid, on a national service delivery model for warfarin patients. Members have papers before them on the previous consideration of the petition, as well as submissions from the University of Birmingham, the petitioners and Dr David Patterson.
I think that we need to go back to the Government to get information on Healthcare Improvement Scotland鈥檚 guidelines on self-testing and ask whether the Scottish Government would commit to consulting the petitioner and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on evaluating the efficacy of the local self-management service delivery model that they have developed together. We need to find out what they think of it. Do members agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
NHS Centre for Integrative Care (PE1568)
The next petition is PE1568, by Catherine Hughes, on funding of, access to and promotion of the national health service centre for integrative care. Members have a note on the committee鈥檚 previous consideration of the petition and submissions from a number of NHS boards, the Scottish Government and the petitioner. Members should note that the petitioner made an additional submission, which has been circulated and put on members鈥 desks this morning.
I should say that before I came in this morning I received an email from Dr Jacqueline Mardon, who has raised a couple of issues about evidence on the website. Just for clarification, she has identified issues in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the SPICe briefing that she considers to be inaccurate; I want to put on record that the briefing was produced at the outset of the petition and information that has come to light since the petition was submitted has led to things being updated. It does not change the original SPICe briefing, but we know that the two issues that she considers to be inaccurate鈥攖he range of conditions and in-patient homoeopathic beds鈥攁re, indeed, inaccurate and we are taking that on board in our considerations.
This might be a result of my not having been a member of the committee when the petition first came out, but I have had discussions with local people who have received support from the service in question and I would like to request that the committee invites some of the health boards that are making these decisions to come and speak to us. I have been told that the waiting lists for these services are going through the roof, and there are real concerns about the types of support that are being given to people with chronic pain issues. I wonder whether we need to hear from representatives of the health boards that are deciding not to support the funding of the integrated care service so that we can have a fuller understanding of why they are doing that. Obviously, writing back and forth helps in getting us information, but I think that that information is just raising more and more questions.
Do members agree that we should try to get the health boards to come and speak to us at a future meeting?
I support the suggestion that we get the chief executives to come along, but before they do so, we should make them aware of the issue of the decisions not to refer any more patients to the CIC. Although NHS Lanarkshire has committed to continuing the treatment of patients who started it prior to 1 April 2015, it has not committed to making any referrals after that date. The waiting list issue that you have raised is a result of patients no longer being referred from NHS Lanarkshire, and the same might be the case in other health board areas.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has said that it will maintain the service, but the question is how long it will do so. It might be saying that it will maintain that commitment, but the concern that is being expressed by the petitioners and others is how long it will do so if other health boards start to reduce their reliance on the service in question. NHS Lanarkshire has made it clear that it will continue the treatment of those patients who started it prior to 1 April 2015 but that the situation will be reviewed if it is felt that patients no longer require treatment beyond that period. There is an issue with the CIC鈥檚 sustainability, but the underlying issue is the lack of referrals from other health boards.
On the question of who would be invited, we have received submissions from Lanarkshire, Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Highland. Do members agree to invite those health boards?
Members indicated agreement.
That will certainly give us an idea of what is going on out there. We will write to them and ask whether they are prepared to come along and discuss not just the negative aspect鈥攖hat is, what they are not doing鈥攂ut what they are doing to replace the services and to address in a more constructive way people鈥檚 concerns, or what we might call the health promotion aspect. We will be not just challenging their decisions but asking them, if they have made those decisions, what alternatives they are putting in place and what they are doing to replace the services that they no longer want to support.
Do members agree to take the matter forward with that request?
Members indicated agreement.
Parental Alienation and Civil Legal Aid (PE1543)
The final petition is PE1543 by Stephen Salters on investigating parental alienation and reviewing civil legal aid. The petition was originally lodged in November 2014 and was subsequently taken down for legal reasons, which were that the petitioner was involved in outstanding legal proceedings to which the subject matter of the petition was relevant. The legal proceedings have been concluded, and the petitioner has requested that his petition be published and considered by the committee. Having had sight of the petition and being aware of the outcome of the proceedings involving the petitioner, which have resulted in a non-harassment order being put in place, the committee will now consider what action we can take.
I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the outcome of the legal proceedings and the issues involved mean that, in this instance, it would not be appropriate for the committee to consider the petition further. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
As agenda items 4 and 5 are to be taken in private, I close the meeting to members of the public.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:43.Previous
New Petitions