Current Petitions

Since my last appearance at the committee, the hospice has undergone a Healthcare Environment Inspectorate inspection, in which it scored the maximum across the range of six sectors. Such an achievement is pretty unheard of. I know that some of the members who are here today have offered support to the hospice, for which it is grateful.The HEI inspection can be seen and measured, but what members have not seen is how the service that is provided helps individuals. Not every day, every week or every month, but frequently, when I am going about my normal business, people from across the board come up to me and talk about the hospice. It is almost as if Sister Rita, the chief executive, has sent a wee note out to people to tell them that they should keep me on my toes by talking to me about the hospice. The almost universal message that I am given is about the good way in which loved ones, family members and friends have been dealt with there.Of course, that level of service comes at a price. I am concerned about the amount of responsibility and effort that is being shouldered by the board to raise funds to cover what I call a shortfall in the resources that are provided. I think that that causes enormous strain. The amount of money that people give to charities is decreasing at present, and I worry that the hospice will not be able to cope, even though the board is innovative with regard to fundraising and puts a lot of effort into doing it.The amount of money that the hospice receives from the health board is the lowest amount that is received by any hospice from any health board. I do not think that that measures up to the service that it provides. I do not know what the right amount is, but I might suggest that we could expect the norm to be the average. Of course, whether the average would be enough is open to question, but the hospice does not even get that much; it gets the least.There is an expectation on the Government’s part—as you can see in the letter from the cabinet secretary—that there should be a resolution to the issue. Discussions are taking place and I think that, with a bit of good will and perseverance, we can come to an amicable solution with which both parties feel comfortable. That is practical and possible.To be quite frank, I have run out of ideas when it comes to asking the committee to do something. However, because of what is happening at present, this would be the wrong time to close the petition. The fact that there is a live petition in Parliament is, in itself, helpful to the process. It would send the wrong message if the petition was closed, as it might look as if the problem had somehow gone away. I do not regard this as a local issue. The fact that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde supports a number of organisations such as the hospice but that it receives the lowest level of funding shows that there is a national issue.I wish that I could solve the issue locally by using my office to make the difference that is needed, but I need your help, and I ask you to keep the petition open.10:30

I should declare that I visited St Margaret of Scotland Hospice a couple of weeks ago. I had a meeting with Sister Rita, the chief executive, and others and was given a tour of the hospice during which I met some of the staff and others in the hospice. It is an excellent facility, and as the inspection report that Gil Paterson mentioned makes clear, it is viewed as such by others.I think that we should examine a couple of issues, particularly with regard to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s response, which refers a couple of times to funding for “agreed” services. I would like to ask the health board whether there is a difference between the service delivery agreed for the other five hospices in the board’s area and that for St Margaret of Scotland. The health board’s response mentions other issues such as “bereavement and spiritual support” and I would like to know not only what funding is being provided for that but, as the committee has tried to find out in the past, whether there is parity in the funding for the hospices in the health board’s area.We should also ask the health board and the Scottish Government about the national hospice quality improvement forum, which, according to the health board’s response, has not yet been established even though“the Board is awaiting guidance”from it. It would be useful to find out where we are with that forum and when it is likely to conclude its deliberations on the advice that it will issue to health boards, so that we can take the matter forward.As you and Gil Paterson have indicated, convener, we need to keep the petition open until we get answers to some of these questions. It seems that, every time we hit a brick wall, we get information that knocks out another brick and creates an opening that allows us to raise other issues. It might be that hospices in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s area are not being treated equally, and it would be useful to examine that matter. I am certainly keen to hear more about the quality improvement forum that is mentioned in the health board response.

Like Jackson Carlaw, I support the view that we should continue the petition until the cabinet secretary is satisfied.My concern is about the letter from the petitioner on how NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde allocates the funding. According to the letter, the board funds 50 per cent of the agreed service costs for the hospice, but there is no comparison of how it treats this hospice and other hospices. I am surprised that there is no value proposition on how that funding is arrived at. Out of courtesy, if nothing else, the board should indicate the basis of the funding arrangement.

It is much appreciated. Thank you.