PE572 is from Patrick and Jennifer Woods and is about provision in Scotland of respite homes with no upper age limit for sufferers of multiple sclerosis and other disabling conditions.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Multiple Sclerosis (Respite Homes) (PE572)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Christine Grahame SNP 5
- Kate Maclean Lab 3
- David Davidson Con 1
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
The record
10 contributionsI declare that I sit unpaid on the Aberdeen respite project management group.The petitioners are asking for an investigation into the provision of respite homes; there does not appear at the moment to be a mapping exercise in place that will answer that. I believe that the Scottish Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should deal with that, rather than the committee. As a national body, COSLA also has a direct input into the issue. Some multiple sclerosis victims will be receiving respite in homes, but it might not be a written policy; provision might depend on availability and suitability. I would have thought that the petitioners' first port of call would have been COSLA.
The petition is trying to take up the general issue of the limited respite facilities that exist throughout Scotland. During the summer I met representatives from the MS Society so I know that there are issues. Bearing in mind our tough work programme, we might have to arrive at the same conclusion over and over again. When there is an issue that we know is important but cannot slot immediately into our work programme, we should put it into a pool for consideration later. It would be worth our while to have discussions about such issues, but we should not distort or overextend ourselves at the moment.We should revisit the issue at a later date and we should thank the petitioners, as Mike Rumbles said. It is always important to close the loop to the petitioners and to tell them that they have raised an important issue and that we are willing to consider it in the future.
If we are going to ask questions about respite care, I would like to widen the issue a little bit. As well as ask whether there is adequate provision of respite care, we should ask whether there is appropriate provision. I know of young adults who receive respite care in nursing homes for the elderly, which is obviously wholly inappropriate.Some people do not want their relatives to leave their home to get respite care; they want care to be provided at home when, for example, the family member who is the carer goes on holiday. We should ask what appropriate adequate respite care is available. That might be better than asking only about respite care homes because I think that very few homes provide only respite care.
In the first instance, we should write to COSLA to ask whether there are adequate and appropriate facilities for respite care for people who have disabling conditions. We should ask for statistics on the facilities to be provided. As COSLA does not represent all the local authorities, if members wish to receive a global picture, we should also write to the authorities that are not members of COSLA. We will send copies of the responses to the petitioners and, in the meantime, we will close our consideration of the petition. We will have to consider the petition as part of a later work programme, but at least we will have elicited the information from COSLA. Is that what you want, Kate?
The problem with approaching only COSLA is that local authorities are probably not even the major providers of respite care—many charities and other organisations provide such care. We should approach the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care to find out what establishments and organisations are registered to provide respite care, which might allow us to get a fuller picture of the situation.
That is a better idea. We will approach the care commission first.
We should approach both the care commission and COSLA.
Fine.
We have dealt with petitions PE576, PE591 and PE597, which all relate to a similar issue.
In this meeting
Everything on 7 Oct 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Health Committee Tuesday 7 October 2003 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 10
- Petitions Petitions · 14
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 5
- Petitions Petitions · 7
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 42
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 5
- Petitions Petitions · 10
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 4
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.