Current Petitions

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak.I know that PE1105 has been with the committee since 2007, and I fully appreciate that members may want to get it off the books.Things have moved forward in a positive way since the petition was lodged, but the main issues that it raises are on-going. There has been no settlement on finance for the hospice, nor is there a contract for the continuing care beds. However, I am hopeful that there will be an outcome to which all parties can sign up. I thank the committee for assisting the petitioners. It is a positive thing that the petition is still live, because that puts pressure on our moving towards the outcome that we seek.The committee has correspondence from a supporter of the hospice that spells out some of the difficulties and the matters on which we have not yet reached conclusions. I reiterate that a good outcome is possible, but to assist in that process, I ask the committee to keep the petition open in case the petitioner and I need to come back and speak to you in a different tone.

I hear what Gil Paterson, as the local member, is saying to the committee. However, there is a difficulty. Although the committee was generous in broadening the scope of the petition and considering it on a national basis, it appears from the correspondence that the petitioner disagrees with that approach and wants us to be extremely local in our deliberations.That means that the petition would probably fall outside the committee’s remit and abilities, in that we would be considering a particular local circumstance rather than a wider national issue. I would be concerned if the petitioner wanted us to take a narrow view of the issue, because we are probably not able to do that.

Although I hear what Mark McDonald has to say, I emphasise the petition’s importance in assisting the wider debate. He is right to say that the focus has narrowed, but it is a supporter of the campaign and not the petitioner who wants to localise the issue. The petitioner has not responded.I have a couple of concerns about how we will move forward, and I would like the committee to keep the petition open on the following basis. We have received a letter from the health and healthcare improvement directorate that says that the report “Living and Dying Well: Building on Progress” was published in January 2011, and goes on to say that the review group report has been published and that there are on-going discussions with the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care and representatives of hospices.The difficulty is that the letter that we have from a supporter of the campaign mentions that meetings have been held without representatives of the hospice sector being present. I would like the committee to continue the petition and to write to the Government to ask it to answer the specific points in the letter. We should ask whether discussions are taking place and how they are progressing, with reference to the letter’s allegation that meetings are taking place to discuss future provision without the hospice sector being represented. If we are considering how the sector can deliver a meaningful service, that has to be done in conjunction and discussion with the hospices so that we get right all the factors in delivery of the service.15:15

I was not on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition first came before it, but I have listened to Nanette Milne, John Wilson and others who were.I come at the matter from a different angle. My involvement has been in the clash between St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and Blawarthill hospital. The letter mentions an agreement between the local health board and a nursing home. I know that the nursing home in question is a Four Seasons Health Care nursing home—those homes are being sold off all over the place. I am concerned that we are talking about something that is different to normal all-encompassing palliative care. St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and Blawarthill hospital offered similar care and now that the Four Seasons Health Care nursing home has gone into receivership, an awful lot is going on that we do not know about yet, especially if there are going to be beds in Blawarthill or St Margaret’s. I do not want the petition to be continued forever, but I would like clarification on what was being discussed about nursing homes. We need to see an end to the issue. We need to find out whether St Margaret’s is going to be viable because of what the health board is going to give it towards its costs. We also need to know how Four Seasons Health Care’s going into receivership will affect the situation. That is why I would like the petition to continue.Perhaps Gil Paterson could at our next meeting update us on the Four Seasons situation so that we can make up our minds then.

My concern is the business of discussions and decisions being made without consultation of those who should have been consulted; I believe that allegations have been made about that. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens in local government, where I have been working, and I would certainly like questions to be asked about what has been going on. I would like the petition to be continued for at least one more meeting.

This is very much a local issue about how the system impacts on a given facility. The issues should not be confused. Mark McDonald is quite right that one part of the matter is funding for hospice units throughout Scotland. However, the other aspect is that beds were being removed from St Margaret’s: although that threat has been lifted, no long-term contract has been put in place. For that reason alone it would be an advantage if the petition were kept open.There has been dialogue, but it has been very slow. I have been at meetings and in direct conversation with the health board on the matter. I do not want to put my neck on the line, but with a little bit of foresight and common sense, we could come to a satisfactory conclusion. The matter has been on-going since 2007—the committee will understand that the only thing that has changed in that time is the lifting of the threat of removal of beds from St Margaret’s—so I cannot give the committee a timescale.I make a plea to the committee that if the committee looked at the matter in a month or at the next meeting, that might be a bit too early. We might need a bit more manoeuvrability.

Thank you very much for your time.