 Maen nhw'n fawr, a chwybod nhw'n sefydlu, coffin yr unrhyw i fynd i ddechrau 15 yma. Ryszardd ddim yn ddigwyl gyntaf o'r bain â edrychiol, fel y byw fan, cymdeithasach newid wrth fynd. Ieithdo ddweud fy modd o Angus MacDonald a'n fawr i fynd i'ch gwaith i chi gefnidu Ger Meaddy, coffin yn gyfan i ymwyfn o'r gwybod. Mae'r unrhyw gwrsiau cymotig y byw yn dweud i'ch gyd yn gynhyrch ar y cyfnodiad pan gwybod and business planning in private. Does the committee agree to these agendas in private? The agenda item number two is consideration of new petitions and the next item of business is consideration of two new petitions of the committee will hear from petitioners in each case. The first new petition is PE 1565 by James Dougall on whole life sentences for violent i wneudundeb i gyd... y Clyrch, y b強 cymysgrop a'r cynllun antrwn. Rhyw gaf i chi oergyntaf i ddechiswnod Jaime De Myan assault a datblyn Cyfnoddd rippers yn cyfan ddeldd rôl wedi ar wrth gwerth ddifen Statesataidd, i gondol â gael Pismannau space filho i ariunau'r alloc i g일. Anledd ad 설� ddim yn cael ei prosieg wah驰 io ym Mgr Ifanc gradidyddhas a phobllinei I had a bit of an IT failure last night, so I've had to resort to pen and paper this morning, so excuse me if I pause to read my notes on occasions. I thought the way to address the idea of this petition would be to look at some of the reasons that are given for not having a whole of life sentencing in our current statute book and by looking at these reasons develop my argument on why it should be there. In thinking about the reasons why not, I think I came up with four reasons why a whole of life sentencing could possibly not be in our statute book as of today. The first reason that gets talked about is that judges can effectively sentence for whole of life. The second reason in my mind is 73% going by the parole board figures this year of life prisoners are not recommended for release. The opportunity for release is required to give prisoners hope and facilitate their rehabilitation. Number four, there's a sufficient deterrent in our current sentencing regime. If I can look at those reasons in turn, number one, judges can effectively sentence for whole of life and do some research into this. I guess it's true that judges can sentence whole of life. The only example that I could really find were the mylent murders where Angliss Sinclair was sentenced to a 37-year sentence. He was 69 at the time so he was 106 before he'd be eligible for parole. The 37-year sentence was largely symbolic since he had been a lard for 37 years and that was the only real example I could find where anything approaching whole of life sentencing had been given by a Scottish judge. So although effectively we can do it in practice, it doesn't happen. I talked about 73% of life prisoners not being recommended for release and again I take that from the parole board report for this year. Again from their report, of those 27% that were recommended for release, 38 licences were reviewed, i.e. the people let out on licence had to be recalled. So that was 14.9% of the population, 22 of those were to Colty Custody, 8.6% and 11 will not be re-released 4.3% of this year's figures. I also looked at some of the English statistics, they have probably a more comprehensive statistic package released to the public than the Scottish system currently. Violent crime, the re-offending rate for violent criminals was approximately 20%. 20% of that 27% comes back to that magical 5% number, the 11 that weren't released out of our figs, the 4.3%. So there's 5% of life prisoners who are being released and who are going on to re-offend and it's really this 5% that this petition is looking to target. The third point I made was the opportunity for releases required to give hope and facilitate rehabilitation and the logic would tell you you've got to agree with that in the broad terms that if you want effective rehabilitation then there has to be some hope. But I go back to the 5%. For those that disregard rehabilitation, the rehabilitation offer showed that they have no intention to rehabilitate who have been through a whole-of-life sentence and yet still are released and going to re-offend again the 5%. That's the offenders that we'd like to target with this petition. That's the people that we see it being appropriate for whole-of-life sentencing. The last point I made was the sufficient deterrent in current sentencing. Again, I do like my statistics and I look through the Scottish statistics for this year to try and justify that in my mind. Is there a deterrent in current sentencing? I'm going to compare the statistics from the years 0405 to 1112 just because it's got the complete set. I know there are other statistics in 12, 13, 14. But for the statistics I'm looking at, re-offending has gone down. In 0405, 0.61 re-offensies per offender. 1112, 0.54. The overall crime rate is coming down as you know you'll be aware. Homicides, numbers of victims, 0405, 137, 1112, 93. Meanwhile, while crime is certainly dropping, custodial sentencing is 15,011 in 0405 and 1112, 15921. So custodial sentencing rising. Prison population 6,769 in 0405, 8176 in 1112. Population of the prison rising. And those in prison for greater than four years going from 2,919 to 3,078. So yes, crime is dropping. But because we are applying tougher sentencing, taking to its logical argument, then whole-of-life sentencing surely must be the most appropriate deterrent, especially for the 5%. But I really believe that. I don't really believe that if the truth be told. I don't really believe that whole-of-life sentencing will be an adequate deterrent for the 5%. The 5% will be deterred by nothing. That's the whole point. The whole point is that these people we need to be protected from and the public needs to be protected from this 5%, because there is no adequate deterrent. Life sentences, as you know, are made up of the punishment part for retribution and deterrence and the intermediate part for protection of the public. I've talked a little bit about protection of the public and I've talked a little bit about deterrence. I'd kind of like to turn to talk a little bit about retribution. So does the punishment fit the crime? The average life sentence in Scotland from the figures I reviewed was a report on 1996 was the last official figures. The average life sentence was 11 years, one month. Again, from the probable report of this year, I did my own calculations. While no exact figures are given, my rough calculations suggest that life sentences are approximately on average 13.5 years currently is actually served. I have to go to my own personal situation. Obviously, the matter that brings me here is very, very personal to me. I may not apologise, but I realise that the petition doesn't address our situation individually and addresses a much wider issue. But I think our situation gives an example of what I'm trying to speak about. My sister Isbell was 51 years old. She was violently attacked in her own home. Not just violently attacked in her own home, chased through the house, stabbed 37 times, suffered 64 individual injuries, eventually fell jammed between a chair and a cupboard. At least three or four of the stab wounds penetrated vital organs. She died at the scene. A partner of 30 years had three stab wounds as well. The offender received a minimum sentence of 26 years. He was 19 when the offender, 18 when he's 45, assuming that he gets through the parol board. The same age as me. In fact, six years younger than Isabel when she was murdered in her own home, a relatively young, fit man who's already been through the system, who's already had many chances at rehabilitation, who's had custodial senses, who's been through the system a number of times. It affects not only us, myself and Lindsay, my sister here, but my mum is 82. Isabel also had six nieces and nephews, the youngest of whom was three at the time of the attack. This individual's already been given the opportunities to reform. How can you be sure if we do release him that he won't offend again? How can you be sure he's not one of the 5%? So why do we raise the petition? We raise the petition to protect other families from similar situations. It's by the only action we have in the current situation we're in. I hope that the petition shows that there's support for tougher penalties, not in all circumstances. But for those violent repeat offenders who go on to commit murder, and what are we aiming for out of this? Well, in the research that I've done today, the model I've liked the best, that I've looked at, has been the English model, not. I'll ask you to wind up. No worries, I'm in the home straight. Okay. In the English model, the definition and guidance given to the judiciary in the whole of life sentencing, not necessarily the words themselves, but the idea that judiciary has some guidelines that tell them where whole of life sentencing is appropriate is something that I would like to see in our own legislation. And even though they do give them guidance, the judge still has the ability to very much make their own decisions. I'd like to thank you for your time today and for answering any questions you've got. Well, thank you, Mr Dougal, and I'm sure the committee is sure you're sore and grief at the loss of your sister. And the Crane Prosecution Service in England's website sets out the following guidance in relation to the circumstances where a whole life order might be considered appropriate. You know, where the offender is 21 or over at the time of the offence, and the court takes a view that the murder is so grave that the offender should spend the rest of their life in prison. A whole life order is the appropriate starting point. Such an order should be specified where the court considers that the seriousness of defence is exceptionally high, and such cases include the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim for sexual or sadistic conduct, the murder of a child involving the abduction of a child or sexual or sadistic motivation, a murder done for the purpose of advancing the political, religious or ideological cause, or a murder by the offender previously convicted by murder. Do you agree then that with the guidance in England regarding the circumstances where a whole life murder order would be the appropriate starting point when considering a sentence? I think the points in the English model are all very relevant. I would hope that something like that would be included in the guidance if there is any that comes out of this petition for the Scottish judiciary. The only one thing I would add is around that re-offending rate. The key thing in our mind is people who show violent tendencies who repeatedly don't follow through with their rehabilitation, don't take advantage of the opportunities offered to them by the system, who then go on to commit murder that they should also be eligible for the whole-of-life sentencing. Questions? Mr MacAskill? I express my sorrow for your loss. Do you accept that there are other prisoners within the system at the present moment who have been given tariffs of, say, 30 years to whom this may very well end up a whole-life sentence given that statistically the longevity of a prisoner is probably lower than the average member of the general public? I'm sure it is, and it's statistically probably right. Do you also agree that those who are, well, the mandatory sentence for murder is a life sentence and that people can be released on parole, but they are on lifelong licence until the day they die and can be recalled not simply for the commission of another offence but simply for breaches that can relate to their lifestyles such as who they associate with alcohol, drugs or even where they're staying? Do you think that that provides some, although absolute certainty, some ability for the parole board to exercise control? There is some ability for the parole board to exercise control. You mentioned that licences can be reviewed, and I did say that 38 licences were reviewed last year. 22 were called to custody, so they obviously weren't just fraternising with the wrong people or not living in the right places. They'd done something that they needed a custodial sentence and a living of those was not released. So there must be, and again I come back to the 5 per cent, you're right, it's only a small percentage of people that this petition is targeting. The statistics that you're talking about are that we cover most of the cases with the current legislation that's in place. Yes, you do cover most of the cases, but for the 5 per cent that you don't cover, the ones that might have a chance of getting out. In another particular example, the offender was a relatively young man who's probably provided his rehabilitation and is good enough from the parole board's point of view. He has an opportunity anyway to get out of prison at a relatively young age, a relatively fit man at 45. Any other questions? Mr Diggle, would you be satisfied if in situations where a whole life sentence might be used in England, the minimum sentence that are picked in Scotland, were more clearly than whole life? It would certainly go a long way. The English model certainly defines very, outlines very succinctly what particular crimes can be eligible for whole of life. And again, the one thing in my mind that the English model doesn't have in it that is strongly in my opinion, is that it's not going to be a problem for the whole of life. It's not going to be a problem for the whole of life. It's going to be a problem for the whole of life. Strongly in my thoughts is about the re-offending rate. So people have violent offences, not necessarily murdering the past, but who then go on to disregard that rehabilitation and commit murder, then that whole of life sentence should be an option for those people also. Any more questions? Okay. The committee will now decide what action it wishes to take on this petition. Members have been note by the clerk on what action the member uses. Mr McCaskill. This Parliament has established a sentencing council. The Government is in the process of establishing it. It's not up and running yet, but the direction of travel is now being set by Michael Matheson. It does seem to me that this is an issue that we could write to the Scottish Government and ask whether this would be an appropriate thing, an issue for the sentencing council to consider, because certainly having pushed through the legislation, the whole basis for establishment of a sentencing council is to take on board concerns that the public, not just the judiciary, have. Now it won't necessarily be in the next few weeks, but it's certainly I think the desire of the Government to have the sentencing council established probably is to ensure that they commit office and face re-election, so it won't be an intemnable delay. Any other action points? Mr Carlaw. Thank you, convener. I would be interested to know the incidents in which the Crown Prosecution Services option of a whole-life sentence has been exercised in the period since 2001, which is when the option was extended in Scotland to prescribe a sentence which, in practical terms, was apparently manifestly longer than the anticipated life expectancy of the accused and convicted. Similarly, to know on how many occasions in Scotland that option made available since 2001 has been exercised, because I think it would be useful in considering the petition to have some understanding as to how often, I know the circumstances probably are more detailed than we could enter into at this stage, but to understand at least how often either of these options has in practice been employed. Anything else? Nick. The committee agreed then to write to Michael Marston to take on board the points raised by Jackson Carlaw, and with regards to Ms McCaskill's point of view to the Justice Secretary, could we maybe also ask when the plans are likely to establish the Sentencing Council? Great. OK. Thank you, colleagues. Can I thank Mr Diggle for attending? I now suspend for a minute to allow the table and the next petitioner to take the seat, please. Can I resume? Our next witnesses are not yet arrived, so I will now go on to agenda item 3 and we can consider two of the continued petitions meantime. So we can move on to agenda item number 3. It's consideration of continued petitions. And the next item of business is consideration of six continued petitions. The first petition is PE1351 by Chris Daley and Helen Holland on time for all to be heard. Members have a note by the clerk. Colleg, could I say that this petition was lodged in 2010 and it's taken five years to get to this point. I'm very much welcome the announcement of the inquiry and I hope that it will enable all victims of historical abuse to be able to come forward and testify. And I would also like to put in record my thanks to the petitioners for bringing this petition to the Parliament and I'm pleased that the outcome is formal, is that a formal inquiry with full powers. Is there any other? Mr Wilson. Thank you very much. I just want to check. There's no mention in our notes of any conversations or any discussions with the petitioners regarding the recommendations coming forward. I know there's been a statement has been made in the chamber by the Cabinet Secretary. I know the action that's been proposed but it would have been useful to find out whether or not the petitioners themselves had any comments on the issues that have been raised in the ministerial statement. Because I am aware that there have been a number of press comments made from survivors of institutionalised abuse in the recent weeks and including up to the weekend and it would have been helpful I think to have understood whether or not the petitioner at the present time was happy that this petition would be closed. I've just been advised here, Mr Wilson, that the petitioners were involved in the interaction in the recent work by the Scottish Government and we've not had any contact from the petitioners. Mr MacAskill. We should just close the petition. If there are issues regarding the nature of the proceedings that should be a discussion between the petitioners and those now charged. Sheriff O'Brien, I have no doubt there will be discussions as to a whole variety of issues relating to the conduct of the inquiry who may attend representation. I think the petitioners have achieved what they set out to do and we should allow Sheriff O'Brien now to enter into discussion with them and I have no doubt she will as previous inquiries have always discussed with legitimate interests. David. It can be that I am quite happy to be back Kenny MacAskill. What the petitioners have asked for is now in place and also the three-year time bar in civil cases is going to be brought forward as well so I think everything that the petitioners have asked for is now there for us to move forward. Is the committee then do agree that the committee is going to close the petition on the basis that the inquiry with full statutory powers has been set up and a commitment given to the three-year time bar in civil cases for compensation for historical child abuse. The committee agreed. Thank you. The next petition is PE1482 by John Warnsley on isolation in single room hospitals. Members have a note with a clerk and submissions and can I invite contribution from members? Mr Carlaw. I am happy to suggest that we close this petition. We have written and communicated with the Government on a number of occasions. The issue has also been discussed in Parliament. The Government has no plans to change its current policy although it said it will keep the policy under review and that is a position that has been widely welcomed and accepted on all sides within Parliament and in those circumstances I don't see any productive reason for us to maintain the petition at this time. Members agreed? Thank you. The next petition is PE1493 by Peter Gordon on a Sunshine Act for Scotland. Members have a note with a clerk. Can I invite contributions from members? Jackson. We have held this petition open for some time. Interestingly enough it seems to have received a fair amount of attention and the Government indicated that it was interested in some of the arguments that were being made. We are considering it again because in the cycle of the committee it has come back to us for consideration but I think that it would probably be more appropriate for us to consider it in a more considered way when the consultation which the Scottish Government is undertaking has reported back and we have the feedback from that to inform our views further. Members agreed to defer a petition and to write to the Scottish Government asking it to report back to the committee once the consultation feedback is available and to delay further consideration of the petition until that time. Members agreed? Thank you. The next petition is PE1593 by Geoff 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 with a clerk on the submissions. Any comments from colleagues? Colleg could I therefore say that I am quite concerned about the apparent lack of co-operation with regard to setting up a round table discussion and constituting a working group that includes representatives of disabled people's organisations. I hope that the committee can encourage a more inclusive and effective dialogue and prevail upon the Scottish Government to be more forthcoming and taking on board the petitioner's concerns. Will the members then agree to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and Sport asking her to respond to the issues and concerns raised by the petitioner? I am happy to do that, convener, but I have to express a degree of frustration because I do feel that this is now on something of a merry-go-round this petition. There was very widespread concern within the Petitions Committee when this issue was first aired. I think that we did think that it was that there were actions that could be taken. That did in dearer degree of support and sympathy from the Cabinet Secretary. We were told that these matters however were all being subject to sort of agreement through COSLA to whom matters had been divested I think years ago without really any progress in the interim. There was an understanding that there would be something of a boot in the backside of the process to try and at least move it along to a point where people might seek and receive some financial relief and I just feel to then be told that there's a difficulty getting people even to sit down and discuss it is deeply unsatisfactory. Now, I'm happy that it was a matter that was divested to COSLA by the Scottish Government if they intend to do something about it but it is within the Government's ability to be more direct in its guidance or to evolve a more emphatic policy and so I think we should in writing to the Cabinet Secretary say look we accept the process but if the process isn't one that ever has an end at the end of it then frankly we would like to see the Cabinet Secretary tell us what alternative there might be to that in order that something actually can be done to advance the concern of these people who are currently paying care charges at a level that many of us think was inappropriate and unacceptable in fact. I think there's clearly an issue here otherwise the petitioners would not have brought forward the petition and I think it's the point of principle is that if people are not charged for their NHS care but they are charged for social care there is an issue of equity and fairness and we recognise that the Scottish Government has said that they wish to achieve the objective of a more consistent and fairer approach to charging so I think that commitment is there I think it is something that should be taken forward by the charging working group and I think what we would seek as a committee is further clarity on what the timescales for that process is and when we can expect recommendations to come from the charging working group to the Scottish Government and when we can expect the Scottish Government to bring forward recommendations and proposals in this area. Like Jackson Carlaw I've got concerns about the way this has been handled by the Scottish Government and I'm concerned about the third paragraph in the Cabinet Secretary's letter where it actually talks about COSLA's charging guidance working group already provides around table forum COSLA, Scottish Government, local authorities and third sector organisations are able to discuss the issues around charging. What I'm keen to try and get from the Scottish Government when we write to them is to find out exactly what the Scottish Government's position on this is because while it was all fair and well for the Scottish Government to leave it to the COSLA charging guidance working group to work on this, the Scottish Government working group and it would be useful to know what input the Scottish Government officials are having in that working group and what direction of travel is in relation to coming to a conclusion regarding the charging regimes that are being applied by local authorities because there is an issue here in terms that has been raised by the petitioners in the past of a postcode lottery type situation where some local authorities are charging for social care, others are not and the charging regimes that are being applied vary across the country where they are being applied and I would like to know what the Scottish Government's input into this debate is and what advice the Scottish Government is giving local authorities throughout Scotland in terms of charging for social care at the present moment and in the future. I'm being unhelpful in taking a second bite of the cherry but I think the thing that really many of us at the time the petition was initially heard was that the threshold at which people pay income tax has now increased to over £10,500 and the Westminster Government have said in due course to £12,500 but the level at which people pay care charges has not moved at all and continues to be applied at something like £6,500 which meant many people who are now exempt from paying income tax or from paying other taxes are now being hit with this tax which has not been reviewed in the interim and I think this is what many people were looking to see some progressive policy attached to and the delay in which I think means that there are many people today who are being charged when I think we felt as a committee there was a very good argument for an equalisation of that charge basis which is why I'm disappointed that we seem to just be in something of a circle at the moment. Any other points? Can we therefore agree that we will try to encapsulate most of the points that were raised here and were later to the Cabinet Secretary tell her of her frustration that this seems to be going round and round in one giant circle with no end in sight so can we agree then, we'll come up with a form of words and we'll write to the Cabinet Secretary with that response and great thank you very much colleagues Thank you The next petition is PE1549 by Alan Clare Young on concessionary travel passage for world veterans and members have a note with a clerk and the submissions, can I invite contributions from members? I think it would be worth inquiring from Transport Scotland what their position is regarding transport for London's eligibility it does seem that there's differences there some of the reasoning put forward by transport for Scotland may or may not apply so I think asking them to comment on that to see whether there is any opportunity to get some parity would be worthwhile Gonzala I feel quite strongly about this issue I had actually raised it in Parliament as well where I had asked the Transport Cabinet Secretary to explore the possibility of free transport for our veterans so I'm very supportive of this to go forward and I think that we should be writing to the Cabinet Secretary as well to say that we now have a petition on the same issue and reinforce the possibility of him also reexamining the possibility of free transport for our veterans I think that would be helpful Jackson from Eric Fraser the Scottish Veterans Commissioner who does say that it's not an issue that has been raised with him and who has some concerns about the petition itself and I think that should at least give pause for thought in any further discussion that we have but I'm happy to hear the views of those that we might write to in the interim but I was struck by the slightly different approach being taken by a number of different organisations representative of veterans who obviously want best to seek to advance the interests of veterans but at the same time did want to ensure that there was something fair and equitable about it and not something that would lead to them being divorced in some way from the wider community so I was impressed by those remarks too Any other comment? I committed here to agree to write to Transport Scotland and to consider replicant transport of London's eligibility criteria for veterans and to write to the Cabinet Secretary Great, thank you The final continued petition today is PE 1554 by Jackie Kelly on behalf of Leonard Cheshire disability on improving the provision of disabled friendly housing Members have a note with a clerk and can I invite contributions from members Can I therefore ask that we write to the Scottish Government asking whether it considers local authorities are provided with adequate guidance about how to assess accessible housing demand in the private as well as the public housing sector whether it views the action taken by some local authorities to develop voluntary targets as a positive development and whether it considers more could be done to promote the benefits of taking action on both of these issues Members agreed? I will now suspend to allow our witnesses to take their seats and we will then continue with agenda item number 2 The second new petition is PE 1568 by Catherine Chius on funding access and promotion to NHS centre of integrative care Members have a note with a clerk and a spice briefing and the petition and submissions and can I welcome Elaine Smith to the meeting who has an interest in this petition? Can I also welcome petitioner Catherine Chius to the meeting? She is accompanied by Irene Logan from Fibro Meagy Friends Scotland and Dr Patrick Trust a retired GP. I now invite Ms Chius to speak to her petition for no more than five minutes and we will then move to questions Thank you for the chance of coming before your committee as a representative at the NHS centre for integrative care Given the urgency of the situation and the extreme stress being caused to patients, carers and staff we are very fortunate to have many strong supporters including the health and social care alliance Scotland the cross party group on chronic pain and the latest individual who contacted us just yesterday was Jane Hawking the former wife of Professor Stephen Hawking also offering her support We really are dismayed to be here again appealing to government for their intervention as we thought in 2005 when I was part of the successful campaign team that stopped the closure of the inpatient unit assisted by cross party political support and intervention that the hospital's future would now be secure We won the arguments a decade ago given that it was demonstrated that the hospital was cost effective and resulted in significant long-term continuing cost savings to the NHS However our optimism was short lived as it only took five years before Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board forced through decisions without patient consultation that reduced their beds down from 15 to 7, closed the hospital at weekends and also shut the on-site pharmacy and now we have the ultimate blow as some health boards are now taking away the hospital's patients All this is resulting in death by a thousand cuts and is closure by the back door cutting down the services to patients who are some of the most vulnerable and seriously ill people in Scotland This is not just a plea to stop harm to a hospital but to put an end to the bullying going on of patients because this is what it amounts to when health boards tell people they will be barred from a hospital of their choice Out of the 14 health boards in Scotland just four now refer on a regular basis and some others are sending just a few patients occasionally and that takes a long time a long battle for the GP and the patients to get there NHS Highland and Lothian ceased referrals however recently NHS Lanarkshire ceased all new referrals to the hospital from the 31st of March this year This was despite 80.6% of people who responded to their consultation wanting access to continue which as you understand patients find shockingly undemocratic Why did they hold a consultation when they were going to totally disregard the patient and public view This decision by NHS Lanarkshire to cease referrals exploits a loophole where health boards can withdraw care despite government priorities and seriously puts the risk of the whole future of the hospital and clinics at risk Our concern is if Lanarkshire can get away with this, their example could set a tone for other health boards Lanarkshire should be stopped right now and the government should act Unelected health boards seem to be allowed to do anything they like with patients and it's time elected government and parliament stepped in to please support us After all, boards state that they are answerable to Scottish ministers These tactics are obviously alarming to patients We cannot have a form of health apartheid here in Scotland Someone suffering from multiple sclerosis and chronic pain in the Highland suffers just as badly as another patient in Glasgow where access can still be gained The question must be asked Why would any health board throughout Scotland wish to deny access to a national specialist centre of excellence with consistent 100% patient satisfaction ratings This hospital gives hope where most people have lost faith in the system due to their previous experiences of fragmented care Endless promises to put patients first are worthless in reality Surely boards are acting against government policies equality strategy, the 2020 vision and the patient charter This promotes patient choice and access to individualised person centre care that health boards are supposed to adhere to and is disregarding a violation of their rights Where is the compassion here? We certainly do not have enough specialist services for people with chronic conditions given the increasing numbers that are being diagnosed year on year If national funding can be found to secure this hospital's future and make the unique services available for all patients in Scotland this will put an end to the postcode lottery and allow access to what is considered gold standard care worldwide and we call on the government to intervene urgently to protect the only hospital of its kind in the UK Part of the reason of the run down of this much-loved modern hospital is that help is hidden from GPs and patients We seek for government and boards to promote how this unit can assist patients in long-term chronic complex conditions by informing GPs and other health professionals proactively and to review how it is accessed Patients totally depend on this hospital which they call their lifeline and which undeniably improves their quality of life Without it, many patients simply would not cope and would lose all hope It is well known that the suicide risk is higher than average among those with chronic conditions I honestly do not believe that I would still be alive today had I not been referred to this hospital and I actually wish that I'd been referred sooner immediately on diagnosis as I think my life and health would have taken a more positive path with access to care from the outset At a time when the right to die is currently being discussed where is the patient's right to live by giving them help to make their life a bit more bearable Thank you, Catherine Thank you, Catherine Questions Thank you very much, Ms Hughes for your opening remarks You said that boards are answerable to ministers and I just wondered if you and your colleagues in the panel could elaborate on that statement Are you concerned that NHS boards are actually going against Scottish Government policy? I'm thinking of a statement made by Nicola Sturgeon Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being in June 2012 when she said that the Scottish Government recognises that complementary or alternative therapies including homeopathy may offer relief to some people suffering from a wide variety of conditions and the Cabinet Secretary also went on to say that with regard to homeopathy the results are clear with research showing high levels of safety, patient satisfaction consultation quality, patient enablement and useful outcomes Now, notwithstanding the fact that there are a range of views on the value of homeopathy are you concerned that the decisions being taken by health boards not to refer people to homeopathy services within their health board area and also to the centre for integrative care is going against the direction of policies set by the Scottish Government and perhaps Dr Truss would like to respond Thank you I have absolutely no doubt that boards do not adhere to what the Cabinet Secretary requests and I was I have worked previously in the Vale of Leven and was immensely impressed by the patient power there and the fact that the Cabinet Secretary directed boards to change their plans and I think boards are still going against the health plans of the Government but then they are constrained by finance and I can understand why they do that As a general practitioner I find that staff in the big hospitals are constrained and they are not able to speak their minds which is most unfortunate As a retired GP I feel very able to speak my mind and I'm impressed by the vision of the Government for care for individuals for care as local as possible I'm concerned that something like this where I have absolutely no doubt as a GP I would refer a few patients to the Centre for Integrative Care and I think we still have a huge problem in that it was the homeopathic hospital now I have doubts about homeopathy although I have undoubtedly have many patients who have benefited from it this is not the homeopathic hospital this is the Centre for Integrative Care and I think it is unique and provides results and I've written a brief thing to say that I've had patients who I've been to the Glasgow hospitals they've been to all the Glasgow hospitals they have notes in several sections at all the hospitals and they come to me and you think my God for this vast vast pile of notes and you see what has been done by conventional medicine and I would phone Dr Riley and say do you think you can help me with this person because the changes were dramatic the quality of life brought back not by homeopathy but by a homeopathy plus other things maybe but the whole management at this centre is fantastic and I think it would be criminal not to allow the access for patients in Scotland this is particularly so for patients with disadvantage and I have not looked at the patients who go to the homeopathic or the centre for integrative care but I came from a very deprived area in G83 and these people are not able to cope well with very complicated chronic disabilities and I was talking to a colleague last week who said that she got the impression that quite a lot of the people coming from Glasgow were from the more deprived areas so I think this centre can provide a fantastic support leading to a much better quality of life and a reduced need to call on services one of my patients had 106 out of hours calls in a quarter when we had co-operatives which were a wonderful system incidentally not nearly so good now 106 times and I referred him to Dr Riley he was an inpatient and I think the inpatient beds are very important this man was in for three weeks the change has been dramatic dramatic he had had three operations trust me in that sorry is that anecdotal or you would presumably agree that good quality patient care should be underpinned by a sound evidence base as to any treatments, clinical and cost effectiveness what is the evidence base as opposed to any anecdotal examples that you can give I've said that I think that's extremely difficult I mean I have evidence from my practice in the past that this man is back at work who hadn't been at work for 10 plus years and was calling 100 and something times a quarter and had his stomach cut open three times unnecessary so quantifying that I think is extremely difficult and I think quantifying anything needs a lot of research and at the Vale of Leven where we the hospital being shut three people who have been counting for us and that was stopped by greater Glasgow so it's really difficult to say I've got strong evidence and the numbers I cannot give you I'm sure some numbers could be obtained I'm sure Glasgow could obtain the post codes of people who came and see whether they were more deprived or not because I think in the era where I'm in Helensborough they go off to various things to get help and pay for it getting evidence for this is extremely difficult but I think it's very important people do not see this as save the homeopathic it is not that very definitely not that and I personally did not use homeopathy but I still think there is evidence from the centre that people who had a terrible quality of life and could not function are now able to function and I can't quantify that for you OK Thank you to you Good morning Doctor trust you indicated there in response to Mr Reedy that you couldn't quantify the numbers why can't we quantify the numbers is it just from the perspective that nobody is collating those figures to determine whether or not there is benefit to patients who actually use the CIC I can't answer that question it was answered ten years ago with patient benefits I have been retired for some time now and can't give you that evidence I'm sure that evidence would be available because Glasgow can number crunch for you but looking at outcomes is a totally different thing and it's very very difficult to prove that something is working when you haven't got someone there who's doing the studies and that's the point I'm trying to make clearly if the data is not being gathered then the information won't be available to evaluate the benefits of homeopathic treatments for patients not just in Glasgow but throughout the rest of Scotland and that's one of the issues that we can certainly take up with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Health Board in terms of why these figures aren't being collated and the value to the individuals who can then go on as Ms Hughes indicated earlier and her opening remarks about the benefits that have been accrued to her may have been accrued to other patients as well which has not been calculated but just to go to the try and nail the issue about why health boards are seemingly taking a decision to actually cut back in homeopathic care and the argument that Catherine Hughes have used in your submission is it's based on the House of Commons Committee on the Knowledge Report 2010 a report that was then refuted by the UK Government and actually the UK Government rejected the report from that committee but is it your assertion that some of the health boards in Scotland are still using that report from 2010 to justify their actions in cutting back support for the Centre for Integrative Care in Scotland? The other thing is that I would say that I think three people signed that report out of 14 so that I mean look at the figures there and can I just say what picking up on what Patrick Truss was saying about that whether it's can be quantifiable how people are held there was some research actually done by Dr Riley along with a colleague and it actually showed that the patients also and some of this information is actually in the petition about 40% reported less consultations with their GPs 30% reported less outpatient ambulatory visits 36% reduced the amount of their conventional medication required and 70% also had a useful improvement in the presenting complaint and 67 an improvement in their general mood and wellbeing now you can't put a price on that I mean these people's lives are actually being improved and I know money is important but this actually saves money in the long term so I can't understand why there is an issue about it I don't disagree with the issues in terms of some of the assertions you're making but to go back to some of the issues you've raised in the petition and one of the concerns is that if the money is not being made available nationally depending on local health boards making referrals and making a contribution towards the CIC what do you see the future of the CIC being? If they don't get referrals it will die then that's basically what they're trying and please don't let this hospital die that would be the last thing it would not only be a loss to Scotland the UK because it's the only unique hospital kind we believe it's also the only hospital that's kind in Europe but it would be a loss to medicine as a whole we had letters from the medical students who actually went there before the BMA voted to stop sending them and they reported how much it had improved their learning and understanding and how it made them a better doctor because it was a different branch of medicine that they were learning that increased their understanding of the patient making a much more holistic view and my dad was actually very ill in hospital and there was a doctor who stood head and shoulders above everybody else and I had a conversation with her and she actually told me that she had went to the centre for integrative care as a student and the difference in her compared to her other colleagues was outstanding The other issue raised in your petition is the issue about consultation with patients and the lack of consultation of where consultation is taking place the failure to act on behalf of the patients who have responded to and you used some figures in the NHS Lanarkshire of the health board that I know well you used some of the figures from there Do you think the consultation particularly in NHS Lanarkshire was actually negated by the board and led to false hope that many of the patients and those who responded to the consultation exercise I know there was a lot of concern over what NHS Lanarkshire did and the report that they produced it didn't include a patient narrative it was voted down by nine people voted for it three against and one abstention but what concerned us is do you know they never even wrote to the patients to tell them the consultation was taking place now how is that moral you think you would write to the very patients that go to the hospital to tell them not even the ones in their own health board they're not even telling them that these clinics will cease because that's what they're planning all new referrals will stop so all the figures all the numbers will dwindle and because NHS Lanarkshire is the third largest health board in Scotland because it's a bordering health board it sends the most patients to this hospital after Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board and Robert Caldorwood has made it clear that in his visits to annual review when I've been at his annual reviews and in the press and it was also reported again recently by another person from Greater Glasgow and Clyde's spokesperson that the whole future of this hospital is dependent on the board sending so national funding is the only thing that's going to really save this hospital now we need to take it out of the health boards from deciding I mean it is a national hospital it serves the whole of Scotland I can't understand what the issue is seemingly they did try for national funding before in 1997 and Brian McEloran one of the patients here during the last campaign came before the petitions committee in 2004 asking for national funding as well now in 1997 they were actually turned down because they said that the expenditure wasn't big enough now why can they say that it's too cheap they said that the expenditure had to be above 10 million and it was under 2 million and so they didn't qualify now is that not a ludicrous situation when it actually saves money for the government and the NHS in the long run you mentioned that it's a national service a national hospital surely it's only a national hospital if the health boards referred patients to that centre well recently Maureen Watt called it a national resource so I don't know there seems to be a misunderstanding here with what that they they think is a national resource and on the other hand how many boards are actually sending patients as I said where's the compassion in these health boards that want to deny these patients to be able to access it thank you very much Elaine thanks, I didn't exactly want to ask a question as such it's my understanding that I could come and support the petition is that correct or do you want to finish with your member's questions first and then I could make a statement you're welcome to speak in pub if you want I don't want to intrude on your committee we'll move on thank you very much welcome to our committee this morning I find your petition very interesting and I think my understanding of the NHS as a personal individual is that they have different sections and one section doesn't really care what matters in the rest of the health service saving money they don't care whether they can save money elsewhere as long as their section is not being affected and I think that is a ludicrous situation to be in however I think that we ought to be supporting your petition because I think it's important that we get all the relevant information getting the right figures is important I appreciate times moved on and I also appreciate the fact that we've almost disabled the system by ensuring that fewer people are going there because the full service is no longer available that it was initially so they've almost done the damage before they make the decision and I think maybe that's deliberate because sometimes that's how they wind down things to make it look as if it's unsuccessful it's not very popular so we don't need it so therefore I think figures are important I think we don't only want the figures now but it would be very interesting to have the figures from prior to the cuts that were made in terms of the ability to treat patients so I'm very interested to get figures before and after the cuts to see what effect that's having on the service and also perhaps find out from the national health boards why is it they're not sending the patients there but what is the advantage or the disadvantage of not sending patients there so it's it's not as straightforward it's actually quite complex but nevertheless we need to look at that because I would not want to see a good service go under because some bureaucrats made a decision somewhere Some patients in health boards like Greta and Glasgow and Clyde who still have access to the facilities have a difficulty actually get to the hospital because the GP maybe doesn't believe in the model of care that they're using and that's really because the hospital's not promoted well enough that's why the idea of promoting the hospital and what actually goes on there is taken forward as well and I do know that last Wednesday Shona Robinson and Maureen Watt did come to visit the centre for care and that was the thing that they took away was where did all this misunderstanding come from you know why why has it all developed and hopefully they will in time try and rectify that but it does take the Government to make this a priority and that's what we're asking Indeed, thank you Jackson I have previously raised this matter with Nicola Sturgeon's successor Alec Neill and I felt that given that the 14 health boards have been left to independently make an evaluation that it would have been helpful if the Scottish Government had an overall view on the value of the service provided and thereby established some sort of national expectation or standard in relation to it now the Government climbed to do that my understand at that time so perhaps the visit you refer to may lead to something different if we write the Scottish Government of that so my understanding is that an absolute majority of health there is an absolute majority of health boards who have never referred anybody to the centre and I think you probably articulated why and it's nothing to do with finance it's because they do not believe in the model of care that is provided and it is a fact that a very significant body of clinical medical opinion regards it as a complete and total waste of time and money I'm stating that because that is what is said I'm not offering an opinion as to whether or not I agree with that assessment but it nonetheless is I think enormously influential in the decisions that have been reached by health boards the centre is in the care of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde it has depended upon its viability on the referrals to which you have made reference which have been declining in recent years possibly from health boards that were willing to take a favourable view of the model of health care so it could be for financial reasons or it could be because they too are reacting to that pressure that I alluded to a moment ago but it's difficult to see unless the Scottish Government evolves a view which is contrary to the one they have wished to determine hitherto how this facility will remain financially supportable because however whatever side of the argument one is on it would not be an argument I think to state that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde should subsidise the facility to the exclusion of other health care provision if it is not being supported by health boards from elsewhere in Scotland so I would have thought the key in all of this has to be I don't know if you agree but it has to be the direction or leadership that the Scottish Government wishes to bring to the issue because without that I can't see any other prognosis developing that the direction and leadership is very important but I think we mustn't forget the 100% patient satisfaction consistent satisfaction ratings that have been achieved at the hospital and that means that I mean I don't know many other facilities that can boast of that and it doesn't actually look very good if a facility is getting 100% patient satisfaction ratings saving the NHS lots of money as well and yet the other ones that are being targeted and turned down where's the common sense in that that to me doesn't make sense and the sums are not really being done because I remember during the last campaign they actually calculated that one patient from going there they saved over £100,000 so Problem though and you refer to common sense the problem with common sense is that in practice it's not very common and therefore as a basis of argument it doesn't really advance anything I'm afraid that it would require I think direction and leadership and however much you might point to the evidence which you think underpins a common sense approach in my experience that in itself will not guarantee anything and I mean we will come obviously to summing up in a moment as to what we would do but to my large extent it's very much will depend upon the view of the Scottish Government because I think with their feet the health boards are expressing their own view by their actions Any other questions? Elaine Thanks very much, convener and thanks to the petitioners for coming along to present the petition this morning as I said earlier I'm here to support this petition and I do have a particular interest because my constituents are now being denied access to the centre for integrative care and the clinic in Coatbridge is due to be closed and this is totally unacceptable service cuts and the fact that NHS Lancer has stopped supporting the CIC as we've heard does put its very future in danger and as such I think is extremely relevant when the committee are considering this petition as hopefully you will go on to do I notice in your papers Alex Neil said that anyone who's worried about the CIC closing has no prospect of us allowing that centre to close, well unless it receives national funding or unless the government direct health boards to refer people to it then I'm afraid that's exactly what is going to happen to the CIC You've got a written submission from me so I'm not going to get into detail on this I'll just add to it The reason for NHS Lancer and I think this came out in the question that John Wilson put forward the reason that they gave for stopping patients accessing the clinic is that homeopathy is scientifically unproven but the fact that it works for many people as Catherine said I think should be a major consideration it does relieve pain, it does save money so given that a great many people will testify to the effectiveness of homeopathy alternative therapies and person centred care I think we should be approaching that from the perspective of it being scientifically unproven as yet and actually if you think about it in the past people like Edward Jenner were ridiculed for using cowpox to cure smallpox but eventually that was proven to be correct so can I just say as well to the committee I've personally I suffer from fibromyalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome caused by my thyroid condition and I use a thing called Bowen therapy it works and actually it could save the NHS having it could save me having to have an operation but incidentally I've never been offered by NHS Lancer Shire I refer to the Centre for Integrated Care which actually I probably could have benefited from so I say that having listened to what's been said from the petitioners Lancer Shire is an area of high rates of ill health poverty and deprivation and I think it's outrageous that patients can't now access the partner alternative therapies where the neighbours in Glasgow can so it seems to me that what will happen now is that basically sick people will be forced to pay privately if they can afford to and those that can't afford to will have to just continue to suffer pain I think more alternative therapies like Bowen therapy should actually be available on the NHS not less and even just from a simple money saving perspective I want to just briefly look at the whole process and Lancer should have come into the decision to close clinics and to stop the referrals because really it was appalling, it was secretive I think facts were withheld from the Scottish Government NHS Lancer Shire relied on stating that the process was approved by the Scottish Health Council but at that time they approved that they didn't deem it a major service review because of the information that NHS Lancer gave them if they had deemed it a major service review they would have referred it to the Scottish Government and Scottish Government would have then had to take the decision excuse me, convenant, the figures they gave were incorrect, hundreds of patients return patients were excluded and the Scottish Health Council had questions that weren't answered in their letter which some of the committee members have, Scottish Health Council said if the developments information of proposals change and in particular if it emerges that there is greater patient and or public concern than currently anticipated I would ask that you contact us at the earliest opportunity as it may be appropriate to review this position I think, convener, it has changed there's wide public concern but actually the concern of elected members who are not just one person but they represent thousands of people that must now show that there's a case for this to be referred to the Scottish Executive to be reviewed by the Scottish Health Council overall it seems to me that MSPs are not being properly informed about decisions that affect health provision in their constituencies and regions and I think that's disgraceful we're not irrelevant to health issues in our constituencies we should actually be fully informed about what's going on now, I responded too to the consultation in NHS Lanarkshire they didn't tell me, they actually were not courteous enough to personally inform me of their ultimate decision to close a clinic in my constituency and to stop referrals I had to find that out in other ways so basically, convener, it's a short-term cost-cutting measure it will actually increase costs in the long-term and it will cause pain and misery for patients right now and in my opinion the petition that you have in front of you for consideration by this committee fits the criteria for you to do that, it's a devolved matter it comes under the direct control of the Scottish Government and I really hope the committee will look into this matter further thank you thank you Elaine is there any further questions if there are no further questions can I ask the committee what action it would like to take on this petition Jackson I would welcome us first of all writing to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to get a proper prognosis so far as the board is concerned on the financial plan and the viability of that and also for some detail on the actual business case in terms of the support it's received from other health boards in terms of referrals and which those health boards are because I think it is a limited number I would like us to write the Scottish Government because I do believe that the attitude of the Government to the whole underpinning case for the Centre for Integrative Care is crucial and if the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary have visited it recently I think I'd be very interested to know what attitude they came away with as a result and whether they have any plans to bring any direction or leadership to the guidance to health boards in relation to referral I think both those things from my point of view would help better understand the position any other points? In regards to the actual figures of usage and how many patients were using it before they actually cut the beds down and also what is the current usage and who are the users just now has any of the authorities actually been drawn total use of this unit because as I suggested earlier that some people who are making cuts are making cuts at the source rather than actually going through the consultation and I think that's clearly lacking so we need to maybe find out why people have decided to stop using the service John Moson Can we have a cry follow-up from Jackson Carlaw's comments about writing to greater Glasgow and Clyde health board? I would also be interested to find out in terms of any reviews that have been carried out about the CIC and whether or not the review has included particular services that are currently delivered by CIC and whether they intend to cut back in some of the services like homeopathy because it could be that while they are carrying out a review while CIC may remain there some of the services that are currently being provided may actually be dropped because of the funding issue and it would be useful to find out whether or not that review or that degree of scrutiny has taken place by the health board in Glasgow and Clyde I could also suggest, convener, that we write to the Scottish Health Council because Elaine Smith has alluded to the letter dated 15 November 2014 from the Scottish Health Council to the communications manager at NHS Lanarkshire raising a number of issues and it would be useful to find out whether or not the Scottish Health Council received a response to the concerns they raised and how the health board intended or how they responded to particularly the Scottish Health Council and could I lastly suggest, convener, that we write to NHS Lanarkshire because I think that Elaine Smith has quite rightly raised the issue about while Lanarkshire has held a consultation got an 80% plus satisfaction or set the 80% plus of the patients in Lanarkshire health board said they wanted to continue to prevent that level of support clearly it would be useful to find out what was the ultimate reason for making the decision to continue to refer existing patients but not to refer new patients and whether or not NHS Lanarkshire had taken a decision to actually provide an alternative service to the CIC particularly in light of the decision to close down the Coatbridge base in Elaine Smith's constituency because it would be interesting to see if a health board like Lanarkshire while making these decisions were actually proposing to provide an alternative or that service would be completely lost to the patients who desire that type of treatment and that type of care from the alternative sector rather than the provision that's currently provided by NHS in Lanarkshire. Thank you convener I very much agree with the approach being taken by Hanzala Malik and Jackson Carlaw and also agree with John Wilson's suggestion that we should write to the Scottish Health Council but I'm particularly keen that we write to all of the NHS boards in Scotland who have taken a decision either to stop funding services within their health board area and references being made to the centre for integrative care and I'd like us to understand from the health boards what the rationale for those decisions was I'd like to understand in each case what the process is going to be and what the process is going to be and what the process is going to be and what the process is going to be and what the process of consultation prior to making those decisions was and I think that this committee is entitled to have both that justification and that insight into the consultation process as part of our deliberations. Y Llywydd. Thanks convener, someone asked about figures earlier and actually I have some figures Dorothy Grace Elder who was an MSP colleague of mine a number of years ago has been asking for a lot of information from NHS Lanetshire and from the Scottish Health Council and some of the figures she eventually got from NHS Lanetshire were that patients referred to the CIC from 2010 to 2014, this is both new and returns the total number was nearly 7,000 that's a lot of patients being helped. OK. Thanks for that Llywydd. John. Can I just say clarification? I know Jim Eadie suggested writing to all the NHS boards. My understanding... You can have a decision to stop funding services or referrals to the CIC. Thank you Mr Eadie but you made reference to one health board which I understand is currently subject to a judicial review and would that impact on us having writing to that board to seek answers if they are in the middle of a judicial review? No. John. We'll make that point. Is there any further comment or any further action points? The committee agreed into all the action points that's been raised. Thank you. I kind of thank Dr Truss, Carling Hughes and Irene Logan for your attendance. I will now suspend for a couple of minutes. I now resume the meeting. As agreed at agenda item number 1 the committee will now go into private session for items 4 and 5 at today's agenda.