Hansard

Like other members, I thank Richard Lyle for bringing an important issue to be debated. I, too, want to highlight the work of Alzheimer Scotland and record my thanks to it. I did not plan to speak in the debate, so I appreciate your indulgence, Presiding Officer.

I want to come to the issue from a slightly different angle. A couple of members have mentioned the difficulty that exists with national strategies, local authorities and local decision makers. The national strategy that the Scottish Government has brought forward is really good, but in order for it to work, it needs to be implemented at the local level.

One of the reasons that compelled me to speak is a local issue that I have been involved in, which relates to East Stewart Gardens in Coatbridge. A service is currently provided there for dementia patients—but not for much longer. The decision was recently made to close that service. There was no consultation with patients, families, staff or politicians. The impact assessment that was provided after I had written to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport—the Minister for Mental Health might be aware of that—was not very detailed, to put it very politely.

I do not think that the board will move on the issue, but I wrote to the cabinet secretary to make her aware of it. I do not expect the decision to be overturned, but it is important that the integration joint board in Lanarkshire knows that such decisions for that patient group cannot be taken so lightly in the future.

To give testament to that, I held a public meeting that was well attended and highly charged. A lot of patients and their family members turned up, and they were extraordinarily upset and angry—to say the least—about the way that the situation had been handled. There had been no consultation and they felt that they had been treated as an afterthought in the process. To people who do not know the place names, I apologise for the localism of the example, but the notion that the patients would just be moved to Coathill hospital in Coatbridge was a bit of a red herring to get them through a decision. The patients did not want to go there and it was not a like-for-like service, which is something that I have been taking up on behalf of my constituents.

One thing that came to me during that meeting, and through speaking to Richard Lyle and others about it since, is that that patient group seems to have been treated differently from others at that local level. That has been highlighted in the report that we are debating today. I wondered whether other patient groups would have been treated like that, with so little consultation, and, if not, what the reason was for that. I was surprised. I thought that something must have happened and that somewhere down the line I would be told that there had been a massive consultation. I thought that I must have missed something, but that does not seem to have been the case.

In another case, some families came to me about an issue with supported accommodation that underwent major changes through the local authority. That was at James Dempsey Court, which is also in Coatbridge. A lot of the families who came to me were really concerned. When I spoke to the council about it, I discovered there was a difference in that situation, because the council had, indeed, undertaken a detailed piece of work on the change. However, it become clear that the council and patients’ families had two opposing views on it. Both were probably technically correct, but there is a question about where things got mixed up and how we can make sure that we explain such decisions better to that patient group. As Richard Lyle and others have said, it is clearly going to become more of an issue.

To conclude, Presiding Officer, I thank you again for letting me speak in the debate, and I thank Richard Lyle, Alzheimer Scotland and everybody on the cross-party group for the work that they are doing. We all need to work together at various levels of government to make sure that we get this right.