Current Petitions

I do not want to appear to sook up to you, but it would be an honour to be a member of the Public Petitions Committee. Over the years, it has done some really good work. It is a credit to the Parliament, so we all benefit from it.I draw the committee’s attention to the letter from Jean Anne Mitchell, who is one of the petitioners. The second last paragraph highlights the crux of the matter. The last time I was here, I brought to the committee’s attention some information that pointed out the disparity between what is paid to hospices throughout Scotland. The paragraph that I mentioned states that a hospice in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s area that has 10 palliative care beds enjoys more funding than St Margaret’s, which has 30 beds. That is a contradiction of the Government’s recently published chief executive letter—CEL 12 (2012)—which gives guidance on achieving some parity across the sector. I know that the committee has been extremely patient with the petition; I am fully aware of that. However, St Margaret’s needs the committee’s assistance yet again.When I read the papers, I almost feel as if we are going round the houses and we need to be able to drill down into the situation a bit better. The Government says one thing and the health board says another. I would like the committee to write to the health secretary and perhaps pass on the letter from Jean Anne Mitchell. It would be worth getting the health secretary’s input on it.I am not making a threat in any way, but I will certainly write to the health secretary in support of the work that has been carried out by the committee. It is not an either/or situation and I think it would be beneficial if I wrote as the local member and I would be grateful if the committee would keep the petition open and ask for the cabinet secretary’s comments.

The petition certainly has been long-running and each time we write to the health board and others, we get more conflicting information. The original petitioner highlighted the fact that one hospice is getting more funding than another. We have had the short-life working group, which concluded and published the future funding arrangements.Gil Paterson, you said that you will write to the cabinet secretary. Would it be sufficient for the committee also to write to the cabinet secretary, but close the petition while doing so? Would that be helpful to the hospice?

It would be a good idea for the committee to write, but if the committee took its foot off the gas on the petition, that would send out a psychological message. Although the petition has had some longevity, almost half of what has been brought to the committee has been achieved. I am saying almost half because we are not quite there yet, but a lot has been achieved because of the work of this committee. Closing the petition would send a message to those I seek to influence that our foot has been taken off the accelerator.

I am loth to close the petition. I know that the committee is trying to tidy up the historical petitions, but enough issues have been raised by the latest submission, dated 14 September, on behalf of the petitioner about the clarification of the funding methods that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is using in relation to hospices. I suggest that we regard the petition as applying to Scotland more widely, because the petitioner has raised the issue of funding for hospices in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and how that compares with the rest of Scotland. There is a Scotland-wide focus on funding for hospices.In particular, we need to ask the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for clarification of the disparity in funding between hospices in that area and why it continues. It is also important that we write to the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, asking what work he will undertake to address the funding regimes that apply not only in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland, as there is a wider issue. I do not think that the situation that has been highlighted by the St Margaret of Scotland hospice is unique—there are other problems out there.The hospice movement throughout Scotland is spending a lot of time and voluntary work on raising funds to provide essential care for people but it is being hindered by the funding regimes that are being decided at a local level by local health boards. We can ask the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to put his mark on the issue and try to bring together the hospice movement in Scotland and the health boards to look at the overall funding throughout Scotland. In particular, there is an issue in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that must be addressed. I think that the cabinet secretary should re-engage with the debate to get some resolution as quickly as possible.

I agree with the general consensus that seems to be forming. I have sympathy with the petition and can see Gil Paterson’s point that taking our foot off the gas would send out the wrong message. The committee should write to the health secretary and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, seeking further clarification. It would send out the wrong message if we closed the petition now, and the position can be looked at again once we have received a response from the health secretary and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I am very grateful to you, convener.