The next petitions are PE498, PE499 and PE453. PE498 is from Letitia Murphy on behalf of Fife Health Service Action Group; PE499 is from Mr Tom Davison on behalf of the Dunfermline Press; and PE453 is from Father Stephen Dunn and concerns the medium secure unit at Stobhill. The petitions concern issues relating to acute services provision in Fife and Glasgow.In line with our usual approach, we considered the petitions in relation to consultation. Members might recall that we took evidence and should have before them a revised paper with the minister's comments. Previously, we did work in relation to Stobhill hospital and Stracathro hospital. I think, however, that we had a debate in March 2000 rather than in March 2002—I am losing my memory, but I do not think that I have lost it as much as that. The paper outlines key points that the petitioners raised and discussed when they gave evidence to the committee. I seek guidance from members on what they wish to do next.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Fife NHS Board (Right for Fife Business Plan) (PE498 and PE499) Greater Glasgow NHS Board (Consultation) (PE453)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Margaret Smith LD 6
- Mary Scanlon Con 3
- Dorothy-Grace Elder Ind 3
- Margaret Jamieson Lab 1
- Janis Hughes Lab 1
- Nicola Sturgeon SNP 1
The record
15 contributionsRichard Simpson's first-class report on Stobhill is not mentioned. He made excellent recommendations.
Members should have the recommendations.
My papers were separated. Richard Simpson's report was thorough and there were responses from the Executive. Should we find out whether that report has been pursued, because it addresses the points that petitioners addressed?
The Minister for Health and Community Care said that he agreed with the recommendations that the Health and Community Care Committee made two years ago and he acknowledged the early problems in Glasgow. New guidance has been issued.People have to be willing to engage in meaningful consultation, but to some extent the big question continues to be at what stage people should be consulted. The committee thought that people should be given information and that they should be engaged with and consulted meaningfully. However, in the evidence from Fife and Glasgow, the nub of the issue was the stage at which people were consulted. Should health boards have plans already worked up, in which case when people are consulted they will say, "This is not meaningful. You have already made your mind up," or should they consult so early in the process that people ask, "Well, what are you telling us?" That remains one of the key issues around consultation of the public. I do not know whether we want to comment on that or anything else that we have heard, or whether we are quite happy to take on board the comments that have been made by the minister in response to the report that Richard Simpson and the committee produced.
Have new guidelines been drawn up for informing, engaging and consulting?
Yes, there are new guidelines. If members want to return to the issue at a future meeting, at which we will be able to provide further information, I am happy for us to do so. There is other guidance.
The guidance that has been issued is not hard and fast—that is the problem. It can be tailored by each and every health board and trust, as they wish. There are difficulties with that and we should advise the minister of the points that have been made by the petitioners, referring them back to Richard Simpson's report, which became the committee's report, and asking him for his views.
The major problem seems to centre on the fact that health boards almost everywhere are making proposals, but are offering no alternatives. Nothing is spelled out when proposals are presented to people. It is shocking that people must appeal to the Parliament for help, as the people from Dunfermline did last week. Some of those people are extremely frail and suffered a wet day in Edinburgh. We must get a grasp of the situation.
At our meeting, the minister did not speak with the benefit of knowing what the people who gave evidence said. It would be interesting to put to the minister all the points that we have summarised, asking for his comments. Consultation is all very well, but we want to know what mechanisms the minister can put in place to ensure that people's views are taken into account during the evaluation process.
We could also ask the minister for his views on the idea of adding a certain number of elected representatives to health boards. That idea is being suggested in a number of areas.
The petitioners raised those points and we would expect the minister to respond to them.
Oh, well—that is another one gone, in that case.
I agree with Margaret Jamieson that we should ask for the minister's response on those points and I agree that we should return to the matter at a future meeting. The committee has to close off this line of inquiry and to decide whether there is anything that we want to recommend, at which point Dorothy-Grace Elder's proposal could be discussed.
We will ensure that all committee members have, well in advance of that meeting, a copy of the guidance that has been sent out by the Executive.
In this meeting
Everything on 4 Dec 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Health and Community Care Committee Wednesday 4 December 2002 (Morning) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 2
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 26
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 6
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 9
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 15
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 6
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.