Continued Petitions

The final continued petition on our agenda is PE1841, which was lodged by Natasha Hamilton on behalf of the Care Home Relatives Scotland group. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to allow a designated visitor into care homes to support loved ones. We welcome Jackie Baillie back for our consideration of the petition.

Since the last consideration of the petition, responses have been received from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, the national clinical director, the Care Home Relatives Scotland group, the petitioner and numerous other stakeholders who have an interest in the petition.

In her submission, the cabinet secretary provided the committee with a copy of new guidance on care home visits, which was issued on 24 February 2021. The guidance recommends that care homes put in place the necessary arrangements to support safe, meaningful contact for up to two designated visitors per resident, twice a week.

The national clinical director explains that, with the multiple levels of safeguards and protections in place, he is confident that safe, indoor visiting can resume. He further explains that everyone living in adult care homes, no matter their age, health, or otherwise, can have meaningful contact with their families and loved ones.

In its submission of 15 March, the Care Home Relatives Scotland group advises that, in its recent survey, 58.4 per cent of respondents reported that meaningful visits had started as per the 24 February guidelines, whereas 41.5 per cent answered that they had not. The Care Home Relatives Scotland group states that its survey results demonstrate the

“inequality that is happening to care home residents and their families across the country despite having guidance”.

The petitioner, in her personal submission, has explained how the restrictions have personally affected her and her family as well as highlighting more generally the negative effect that they have had on people living in care homes. She states that there has been

“So much focus on keeping people like my relative safe but who knows at what detrimental effect”.

I will invite Jackie Baillie to speak in a moment. It is a difficult and emotive issue. I have heard very strongly from the petitioners that they do not want us to feel sorry but want us to act; everyone always says how difficult and problematic the issue is and how sorry they feel, but I understand that the petitioners want action.

The petitioners also want the gap between what the guidance says and what is happening to be closed. Their argument is that that would involve legislation. Parliament is closing for the campaign, so there is no prospect of legislation in the short term. The fastest way to get a commitment to legislation would be by pressing political parties to make it a manifesto commitment. Regardless of whether we decide to continue the petition or close it, the decisions and immediate pressure will come from elsewhere—that has to be the case because it is so immediate.

The figures in the submission on people who describe their contact as not matching up to the guidance are very powerful.

Thank you, convener, for giving me a second opportunity to speak this morning—I promise that I will not go on too long and test your patience.

Having failed in my praise for the convener earlier, I will turn to Gail Ross, the deputy convener, who is also standing down. I regret that, because Gail Ross is a newer member of the Parliament who has made a great contribution in her time here. I wish her well for the future.

I am grateful to the petitioner, the Care Home Relatives Scotland group and the committee for their work on the petition. That pressure has led to the revised guidance. As you rightly said, convener, the difference between the guidance and the reality in many areas across Scotland is stark. Relatives are at a loss to understand when, in practice, they will be able to see their loved ones.

I know relatives with loved ones in local care homes who have struggled during the pandemic—there is no doubt about that. We know that care homes have been at the epicentre of the pandemic, but we also know that the consequences for care home residents have been stark—many of them have lost their lives and those who, thankfully, have not have been deprived of contact with their relatives and loved ones, which has had an impact on their health and wellbeing and on the wellbeing of their relatives. I know that the committee recognises all of that.

A few days ago, I was contacted by constituents who asked me to come along and support the petition because they are concerned about the possibility of a third wave of coronavirus. I hope that the roll-out of the vaccination programme means that that never happens, but their concern is so great that they are very keen to keep the petition open, first on the basis of the inconsistencies between the guidance and its implementation and, secondly, because of a genuine concern about the future.

Convener, you have talked about the immediate pressure—the issue is very much live. On that basis, I ask the committee to consider keeping the petition open and putting it in the legacy paper to tide us over this period while the pressure is still on.

10:45

Will the COVID-19 Committee continue to meet?

It may be that, if we were agreeing to write to the cabinet secretary, we could write to the COVID-19 Committee and say that this is an urgent issue that the committee might want to be aware of, too.

Thank you. People have wrestled with this petition. I go back to my earlier point about the frustration that the petitioners expressed. Everybody agreed that there was a terrible problem and was worried for them, and they accepted people’s concern, but they were very clear that what they wanted was action. We need to be honest in return that we are gravely concerned that the gap between what the guidance says and how people are experiencing it is massive, with consequences for them and their loved ones, but that it will not be resolved by the petition sitting with the Public Petitions Committee.

Given the urgency of what the petitioners want to achieve and that their proposed solution is legislation, the matter will need to be decided by others. I understand that the current policy makers—the national clinical director and so on—are reviewing the guidance weekly. When there is a gap between the guidance and what people are telling them is happening, what do they say and to what extent are the petitioners are engaged with that? I know that it is a very active campaign and they are making their views strongly felt. The situation is being reviewed weekly and pressure can be brought to bear there.

If the implementation of the guidance is not working, as would seem to be the case, we should write to the COVID-19 Committee and the cabinet secretary to say that these are the concerns of the petitioners and it could be on our books for six months. In those six months, the world could be completely and utterly transformed—I certainly hope that it will be—but the issue needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. I agree with members that we want to close the petition because the petitioners have been clear that what they want is action. We cannot do that through this committee, but we can write to the cabinet secretary and underline in the strongest terms that that is what is required.

My observation to the campaigners is that the people who need to answer the question of how we address this as a matter of urgency are those seeking election in the next six weeks. The petition has been caught up in the fact that there is an election. There would have been other avenues open to us if the Parliament was not rising this afternoon.

Do members agree that we should close the petition under rule 15.7? We recognise that it is a crisis for families that has not been resolved and we will write to the cabinet secretary and the COVID-19 Committee emphasising that simply saying that there is guidance does not address the issue. The issue is that what is in the guidance is not what people are experiencing and it is something that is absolutely fundamental to people’s lives. In terms of policy, if there were a new petition, the Public Petitions Committee would be able to agree in terms.

Maurice Corry wants to come back in and then I will give Jackie Baillie a last chance to say something, before we make our final decision.

We can certainly copy him in to the correspondence. That would make sense.

Although I am disappointed by the committee’s conclusions on closing the petition, I understand and support the actions that you will take in writing to the COVID-19 Committee and the cabinet secretary. The issue is one of speed and what is happening on the ground just now. I am happy to commit the Labour Party to including the issue in its manifesto, but the reality is that that kind of process waits until after the election when people see the result. If it involves legislation, that takes time, in and of itself. My plea would be that, if people experience a discrepancy on the ground, they should get in touch with their MSPs or their local candidates and raise it as an issue during the election.

Thank you. We hope that, because the issue has been aired and commented on in the committee, it has been heard publicly. If there were a request for it, the committee would be willing to make a statement that it recognises that this is a matter of urgency and that none of the options that are open to the committee respond to that urgency. The committee’s fundamental problem is that it cannot respond because of where we are in the parliamentary cycle.

11:00

We agree that what the petitioners ask for is not warm words, but more action. The Public Petitions Committee cannot deliver that action, but we are clear that we cannot be in a position in which we continue to see a huge gap between people’s experience and what the guidance says. The matter is being looked at closely every week and, although we do not need to tell the petitioners what to do, since they have run such an effective campaign and they will do this anyway, we could highlight as a matter of urgency that they should keep the pressure up on those who make the decisions while the election process goes on. Pressure also needs to be put on individual candidates and parties to make a commitment and understand that the matter cannot wait, because of the direct consequences in real time.

We agree to close the petition with all the reservations about why we had to make that decision. However, I have indicated that we will want to write to thank the petitioners, to say that we wish that they did not have to be in that position and that we hope that matters are resolved urgently. It is my great hope that they will partly be resolved by the fact that, with any luck, we are moving into a safer world than we have been in for the past year.

I thank Jackie Baillie for her attendance—she was the equivalent of the fifth Beatle. I am appreciative of all the work that she has done in helping to inform the work of the Public Petitions Committee.

This is the last Public Petitions Committee meeting of the session, my last Public Petitions Committee meeting and my last time as a convener or member of a parliamentary committee. I want to underline my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve. Whatever has happened in recent days, the beating heart of the Parliament has to be the committee process, because it brings people together. People can breach the walls of the Parliament, and if we are not doing that in committee, we are not doing the right thing.

It has been a particular privilege for me to convene the Public Petitions Committee because it is the only committee in the Parliament where the agenda is entirely determined by members of the public. I stand in awe of all the petitioners. They have brought to us issues that they care about, which they would much rather not have had to petition on, because they represent personal trauma and sadness. All petitioners have displayed great courage, determination, persistence and focus, all of which have informed the work of the Public Petitions Committee over the session. It has been a privilege to be able to be a part of that. Whatever legacy paper we write, we will want to underline the importance of the Public Petitions Committee attempting to be as responsive and open as possible to the people of Scotland, to ensure that their issues are heard as they might not be heard anywhere else.

I thank my fellow committee members. It has been a particular challenge in the recent period during which meetings have been virtual. Who knew that wi-fi matters so much when you are trying to make a political decision? I am appreciative of all the work of all committee members I have dealt with in the past, but the particular group of members that we have had over the past year has been wonderful to work with.

I offer Gail Ross and Tom Mason every good wish as they depart, along with me, into whatever the world brings next. It has been a great privilege to work with you. I wish Maurice Corry and David Torrance all the best in the elections. You understand that that does not necessarily mean that I wish you electoral success, but I know that if you are returned you will bring the same energy as you have done in this committee.

I thank the broadcasting team, who have managed to pull us together—it has been like herding cats. It has done a great job of making meetings a professional process, even though we are all in different places.

Finally, I thank the clerks, who do immense amounts of work not only to make the committee meetings work and keep us informed in a way that means that we understand and appreciate the key issues, but to engage with petitioners. That engagement with petitioners about the issues that matter to them, and bringing them into a process in such a way that they can participate really well, is the most fundamental thing of all. Most of that work is hidden, but that does not make it any less difficult or challenging. Many petitioners have told me that the clerks have dealt with them sensitively, and the importance of the clerks’ professionalism to the effectiveness of the committee has been beyond measure over the last period.

Thank you very much. I have never been accused of being balanced in the past, so that is a great compliment.

Thank you very much. I will call David Torrance and then I will give the deputy convener the last word before we move into private session. That is much more indulgent than I usually am as a committee convener.

Thank you very much, David. I appreciate your very kind words. We go finally to Gail, our deputy convener.

Thank you very much, Gail. We look forward to seeing what the new Public Petitions Committee does. If it is as focused on what the petitioners are trying to raise as we have been in this session, I am sure that it will do a powerful job of work. Thank you very much. I remind colleagues to join the private session on Teams.

11:10 Meeting continued in private until 11:17.