New Petitions

When notice was given of the intention to close Leslie House, we, the petitioners, thought that the issue was local, and was simply about old, frail and demented people losing their home, their family life and the relationships within their home, and, in some cases, suffering a shortened life span as a consequence. As it happens, we were wrong. The issue is not local but national, and it occurs time and time again throughout Scotland. It is not just about people losing their homes, but about the Church of Scotland—the second largest care provider in the country—and other smaller care providers, none of which is democratically elected, being in a position to take executive decisions that significantly impinge on the social fabric of Scotland by continuing the on-going reduction in the number of residential care places, with the knock-on effect of bedblocking, thereby causing longer waiting lists and the resultant deterioration in the Scottish health service.The issue is about Scottish local authorities and joint community care plans identifying significant increases in older populations, but making no provision whatever to increase the number of residential places, and seeking to justify that profound omission by saying that the focus is on keeping people in their homes for as long as possible. The authorities do that in the full knowledge that, in most cases, there is a limit to the length of time for which someone in their frailty can continue to occupy their home.The issue is about the loss or proposed loss of a further 360 residential places in Scotland since April last year. It is about care providers who have closed facilities and who claim that the reason is that there is insufficient funding to make continued provision viable. Therefore, it is about insufficient funding. No matter what it costs to care for the elderly, society must meet that cost. We would all do well to remember that each of us aspires to be old.The issue is about the elderly having needs and rights and local authorities such as Fife Council taking no steps to determine what those needs are. It is about public authorities and care providers having a duty to work together, although they are not doing so. It is about the old, the frail and the elderly—most of whom cannot speak for themselves and all of whom are in the winter of their lives—having the right to life, to be free from degrading and inhuman treatment and to enjoy their home, family and relationships. They have those rights under articles 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. If the care providers get their way, many people who are more than 90 will be evicted from the home in which they have lived, in some cases, for as long as 15 years.The issue is about public authorities having a statutory duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to protect individuals' rights. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are such public authorities. We, the petitioners, believe that it is time for Parliament to act and to fulfil its duty under the 1998 act. The Parliament also has a general duty to maintain and improve the Scottish health service by arresting the on-going closure of residential homes, including Leslie House—which is a good local example of a national problem—by making the necessary funding available without delay.We, the petitioners, ask the committee to grant the requests in our petition, as detailed in the penultimate paragraph.

No, we have tried only to persuade the Church of Scotland, Fife Council and the Minister for Health and Community Care to do something about a local problem. However, I am here today to talk about not the local problem of Leslie House, but a national issue. No matter how the money is raised—whether by co-operative means or not—the fact of the matter is that money must be raised. It does not matter what the cost of caring for our elderly is; the cost must be met by each and every one of us.I am glad that your experiences with the Church of Scotland have been better than mine. I will outline briefly what my experiences have been. The Church of Scotland announced its intention to close Leslie House, without any consultation—indeed, some of the relatives found out through the media that their mums and dads were going to lose their home. We asked for an assessment of the impact that the closure might have on the residents only to be told that no such assessment had been done—the decision to close Leslie House had been taken without giving any thought to the effect that that would have on the residents.

There might be many ways by which the money could be made available. It would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide which would be the best way. The Scottish Parliament represents society and this is society's problem. I therefore expect the Scottish Parliament to assess the best way in which to raise the money.

There is nothing that I will not do to try to solve this national problem.

I think that we should support the principle of letting people stay in their own homes for as long as possible. None of us wants to leave our home and, given the choice, I am sure that we would all want to die in our own home. However, the hard fact is that, because people live longer now, more and more people are unable to be supported in their own home and they need care, regardless of whether that care is in the community or in a residential home. The fact that someone is in a home does not mean that they cannot be part of the community any more; the community can go and visit them. We visit the care home and I am sure that people visit their relatives in care homes throughout the country.I agree that we should keep people in their homes for as long as possible, but we must remember that there is a limit to how long that will be possible for. That means that we will still need residential places.Fife estimates that, by 2010, there will be 23 per cent more people over 85 than there are now—I had to check the figure because I thought that it was a misprint. However, there is no provision in Fife's joint community care plan for additional residential places.

The number of residential places has gone down. It is going down all the time, which is why the problem is becoming acute.

Yes. It does not matter where the money comes from. It is not acceptable for local authorities to say that they do not have any money. A local authority cannot state that it intends to abandon its frail and elderly because it does not have any money. That option is not available; society must have the money. How the money is provided—whether it comes from a local authority budget or a health service budget—is for the Parliament to determine. The final analysis is that the money must be made available.Nobody wants or expects the Church of Scotland, or any voluntary or charitable organisation, to subsidise the cost of caring for the elderly. It is our responsibility. The Church of Scotland runs homes not for commercial reasons, but because it is a Christian organisation, which seeks to provide a useful service.I am persuaded that private care providers are in the business for commercial reasons. If there were no commercial gain, they would not provide the service. That does not make them wrong, but it means that we must ensure that finance is available to enable the private, public and voluntary sectors to provide the service that each of us needs.

I assume that Mr Gallie is referring to free personal care. It is my understanding that the provision of a place in a residential home does not come into the category of personal care. Personal care provides someone with help to meet his or her personal needs. For example, people are given help with washing and dressing. Free personal care does not cover the running costs of a residential home. Only a small percentage of the running costs of a residential home are attributed to the measures that are included in the definition of personal care.

My understanding may be wrong; please forgive me if it is. However, I know that there is insufficient money to provide residential care places.

There are now 10 residents. There were 11 when I wrote the petition, but a resident died just before Christmas. There are 18 empty rooms, but that is because Fife Council is not referring anyone to the home because the Church of Scotland is proposing to close it and will not take anyone in. It could, however, accept people for respite care, because that would not be a long-term commitment; the longest stay would be two to three weeks. However, the Church of Scotland chooses to keep 18 rooms empty and is, therefore, suffering lost income of 18 times £310 a week. It is costing the Church of Scotland over £250,000 a year to keep the rooms empty.

Only 21 rooms were occupied when the Church of Scotland made its decision. The Church of Scotland had taken a conscious decision to reduce the population of Leslie House to meet the ratio of staff to residents that is required by the care commission.

I am not sure that they are, as most of them are severely demented. My mother, for example, does not know what is happening. She does not realise that someone is trying to evict her from her home. For the past three or four years she has lived with terrible fear, which she expresses by saying, "I am terrified that someone will put me away." We reassure her as best we can and tell her that that will not happen; sadly, because of her dementia, she forgets the reassurances that we give but not her initial fear. The sad truth now is that someone wants to get her out of the home and to put her away, so that they can empty the home. If I said that to my mother, it would upset her—she is not so demented that she would not understand that. We keep that sort of thing quiet.

We have asked the Church of Scotland a number of times what it intends to do, but we have always been told that it does not know. In July, the church told us that it had not had the home valued. I leave members to make up their minds about whether the church knows the value of the place. I suspect that it wants to sell it.

Yes.

No—I am sorry if I have given that impression. In April, the Church of Scotland said that the projected operational loss for the current financial year was £154,000.

I believe that it has. I recall clearly the church saying that a national agreement had been struck on the money that is available to care providers, but the terms of that agreement were not being met. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said the opposite. I did not want to become involved in the argument about who was right and who was wrong. I did not want the focus to be moved from the real problem—the fact that there is insufficient money to provide the number of residential places that Scotland needs.

As recently as the week before last, the care commission wrote to me on this issue. Excluding Leslie House, seven homes are scheduled for closure. That means that 140 places will be lost—or 168, if we include Leslie House. There are probably others, as homes are being threatened with closure daily. St Meddan's home in Troon is not mentioned on the list that I received, but I know that South Ayrshire Council would like to close it. Happily, the relatives of residents there have adopted the same stance that we have adopted in Leslie, so the council may find it difficult to close the home.

I do not know. The Church of Scotland has given the care commission notice that it will surrender its registration with effect from 28 March and has told the staff of Leslie House that they will not be employed after that date. I do not know what the church intends to do. I have no idea whether it intends to shut off the power and to lock the 10 old ladies in the building.Fife Council has a statutory duty to provide the care that is required if the Church of Scotland walks away from Leslie House. However, that is only my understanding—I cannot be sure of that.