Current Petitions

In introducing the next petition, I look to my left in fear and trepidation at the dastardly duo of Des McNulty and Gil Paterson. Margo MacDonald is present to speak to another petition but, unfortunately for me, I see that she, too, has joined us for this item.PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, relates to funding for that hospice and general policy on hospices throughout Scotland. Given that we have discussed the petition extensively in the past and given the time that we have, I ask all members, Des, to be very brief.

I will indeed be brief, convener.The original petition had two strands: first, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s proposal to withdraw continuing care provision at St Margaret’s hospice; and, secondly, the funding arrangements for hospices. Members will see from the relevant papers that the health board obviously noted the committee’s previous discussion of the matter, and Mr Calderwood responded to some of the points that I and others made. I have provided committee members with a detailed reply to his points, which I hope helps them.On page 2 of Mr Calderwood’s letter, he says:“Three successive options proposed have been put to St Margaret’s and been rejected.”The third option was to provide“care beds with nursing support (an option developed between ourselves, Glasgow City, West and East Dunbartonshire Councils).”Both West Dunbartonshire Council and East Dunbartonshire Council have denied being involved in any discussions about proposals for care beds with nursing support. They support St Margaret’s position.Mr Calderwood concludes by making three points on page 4 of his letter. He says:“We are committed to funding the palliative care service which St Margaret’s provides.”The problem is that the palliative care services will inevitably be at risk if he or the board withdraws the continuing care funding, which is two thirds of the funding that the board provides, because there will be a significant funding shortage.Mr Calderwood’s second point is:“We want St Margaret’s to continue to provide care for older people but we have asked them to change the use of these beds”.That is the fundamental point of the petition. Why should Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board take it on itself to decide what St Margaret’s should provide without proper negotiation or discussion? There has been no proper negotiation or discussion in this case.Mr Calderwood’s third point is perhaps the most worrying. He says:“Nothing is being asked of St Margaret’s which is any different in objective or nature from what is happening elsewhere in the country and across Greater Glasgow and Clyde.”If that were the case, I would be concerned about what is happening throughout the country. However, I am particularly concerned about what will happen to St Margaret’s.There has been a successful members’ business debate on the petition since we previously discussed it. A number of members across the chamber spoke in that debate, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing indicated in it that she expected Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to have discussions with St Margaret’s. Those discussions have not been completed; indeed, it is not entirely clear to anyone whether they have started yet. The onus was put on the health board to take them forward.Finally, work has been done on the funding issue, but we do not know yet what the funding will be.On the basis that the funding issue and what will happen to St Margaret’s have not yet been resolved, and the process has not been completed, I urge the committee to keep the petition open and keep the pressure on the respective parties to see whether we can get a successful and sensible outcome.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the petition.I suggest that members take Des McNulty’s advice. The review of funding for the hospice movement is in progress. The committee will be trying to wind down its work on certain petitions, but this is the wrong time to do that with PE1105. The committee should await the outcome of the funding review, because an issue relating to that may arise.Since the members’ business debate on the petition, a survey has been carried out in the local area. Some 75 per cent of those who responded to that survey supported the hospice’s position.We should highlight to members who may not be aware of the geography that only a mile and a half separates Blawarthill hospital and St Margaret’s hospice. They are in the same geographical area. The proposal is to move 30 beds from St Margaret’s to Blawarthill when it is up and running. My argument is that every measurement of the quality of service at St Margaret’s that has ever been taken shows that that quality is the highest. Why would we want to jeopardise that? Why not keep the beds in St Margaret’s in place, and switch the other beds that were earmarked for St Margaret’s to Blawarthill? The two places are in the same health board area. The beds would be in two different buildings, but in the same area.17:00

Okay. I do not think that there is much disagreement on the desire to keep the petition open. We are conscious that a critical stage has been reached as far as any recommendations that may come forward are concerned, particularly on the delicate issues of funding and the review.I am conscious of time, so I would like us just to decide whether to keep the petition open, but if members feel strongly about particular issues, I would be happy to invite comments—please keep them brief, though.

I agree that we should keep the petition open. I would be interested to find out what discussions or negotiations, if any, have taken place between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and St Margaret’s following the members’ business debate on the issue. That is something that we could fruitfully explore.We should continue our work on the petition because it is about the continued provision of an appropriate service by St Margaret’s, which will not in any way hinder the much-sought-after and much-supported development in Blawarthill hospital in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland.

I put on record my thanks to Robert Calderwood, chief executive of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, for his detailed response. I welcome the fact that he has taken the time to respond to the committee, especially given the problems that we have had with the board in that regard in the past.However, I am concerned about the middle of the paragraph in section 4 of Robert Calderwood’s response, in which he states:“Clearly, it is very difficult for the NHS, portrayed as working against the interests of spiritually motivated people who are providing care for the dying, to be perceived in a balanced way.”The spiritually motivated people to whom he refers are a dedicated team of staff who provide services across the board to people who require them. Yes, they are spiritually motivated, but the fact that they provide vital services to people who are at the end of their lives must be taken on board. Regardless of whether they are spiritually motivated, they provide essential services which, unfortunately, some health boards and other health providers do not provide. The fact that the alternatives that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is offering are not the same as the dedicated care services that St Margaret’s hospice provides goes to the root of the debate. The board and its chief executive have failed to realise that. The debate is about the provision of end-of-life care services that are tailored to the individual. The provision of those services, unlike those that the health board has made available, is not based on financial considerations.I hope that we can keep the petition open, get a more detailed report and take the issue forward to the benefit of all concerned. We should not take account only of financial considerations, as the board seems to do.

I will let Margo MacDonald in briefly.

I am here in support of my two colleagues, Des McNulty and Gil Paterson. I agree with what John Wilson said about the temerity of the health board in judging people’s motivation. The hospice provides a service that is more than adequate, as the local opinion poll has shown.I ask the committee to consider keeping the petition open until after the budgeting arrangements for the new Parliament and Government are in place, because we know that there will be knock-on effects on all services, whether they are provided directly by health boards or are contracted out to the voluntary sector. It is in that context that one would want to take the decision about the provision of such care.

I think that the considered view of the committee is that we want to continue with the petition and await the outcome of some of the deliberations and discussions that have been mentioned. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.