Current Petitions

Thank you. It is always a pleasure to come to the committee and to be in the public gallery to hear some of the interesting petitions that come before the committee. I have always admired the committee. I am not just sooking up, but I think that it is the best committee in the Parliament for access for the public, which is really good.

I do not have terribly much to say on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice petition. However, I can sum up the current position, which is that talks are being held about talks. The ground rules are being set. I think that it is being done very amicably. I hope that we are moving towards a conclusion and a point where all parties will be agreeable and can take something from the outcome.

Other than that, I have nothing to say, but I am happy to answer any questions.

I have a question for Gil Paterson. As the convener said, this is a long-standing petition. I do not know why these things take so long. Have there been any consequences as a result of it taking aeons to arrive at a decision?

The biggest consequence is where there have been funding gaps, because there is obviously an outcome in that regard. In effect, we are talking about the allocation of resources on the basis of differentials between similar institutions or within the same institution. It is frustrating that it is taking so long to get to a resolution and a good end point. However, the people who have been involved in the process are patient and they have an expectation that at the end of the journey we will have a resolution that will satisfy everyone. To be frank, I expect that to happen.

That is good and I am sure that it will happen. However, when I look at such issues, I think that, at the end of the day, it will probably cost us a lot more than if we had come to an agreement earlier on. In that case, we would have achieved outcomes that everyone on both sides desired. For the life of me, I just do not understand why some of these things take the period of time that they do.

Yes, I concur with everything that you have said. I prefer to dwell on success. I think that there was almost divine intervention with regard to the collapse of the Blawarthill project. If that project had gone ahead, the continuing care beds at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice would have been shifted to a hospital at Blawarthill. I hate to think what would have happened to the hospice in that case. Thankfully, however, that possibility was averted. We have now secured the continuation of what the hospice does extremely well. The next stage is to look at the funding that comes to the hospice from the health board for the other part of the contract and the work that it does on behalf of the health board for the community.

As I said, I am thankful that we achieved the success that we did. I dare say that it was almost an accident, but nevertheless it was good. I feel positive because that happened. We will now move on to try to secure the last bit. I am an optimist about that, because that is my nature. Frankly, I can see no benefit for anyone in there not being a resolution. I think that we can get a conclusion whereby both parties are satisfied and feel that they are in a reasonable place.

It is not divine intervention, but I am not sure whether I am amused or upset to receive a letter from the Scottish Government saying:

“Both parties also expressed their wish to maintain momentum on this issue”.

I declare an interest, which is that my mother was cared for, and died, in St Margaret’s hospice, so I can testify to the excellent end-of-life care that is provided at the facility. There is huge public confidence in the clinicians and nurses who provide it and, to echo the point that Chic Brodie made earlier, huge frustration and bewilderment at the uncertainty that has surrounded the continuing provision of that excellent facility in Clydebank. I pay tribute to Gil Paterson, who has been assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituency and constituents.

The petition should absolutely stay open until the matter is finally resolved.

I think that I have been with the petition since 2007. I was a substitute member on the committee when the petition first came before it and I think that I have sat on every committee meeting at which it has been considered since then.

Lessons must be learned in relation to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board’s role and its failure to engage in any meaningful way with the hospice in the early days of the petition. That should have happened but, as Jackson Carlaw said, the health board set out a different approach with Blawarthill hospital as the alternative care provider. That option eventually fell through, despite warnings that it could fall through and that there was already an excellent facility providing such care within the area that could provide it without additional cost to the health board.

Both sides have agreed to have talks about talks—I think that was the phrase that was used—but I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government and ask whether there is any indication of the date by which it expects the talks to be concluded. We are now six years on from the petition originally being presented and I do not want Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to have the opportunity to drag out further any discussion with the hospice on coming to an agreed settlement.

Many of the times that we have discussed the petition at the committee, there has been great concern and, as Jim Eadie said, frustration that the health board would not sit down and talk. When it agreed to talk, it dragged the talks on and on in the hope that the hospice would go away. The hospice has been tenacious in its struggle and should be applauded for the work that it has done.

I would like to seek from the Scottish Government and, particularly, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board assurances that there is an end date for the discussions at which we can bring the matter back to the committee and, we hope, get a conclusion that satisfies the petitioners and the many people who benefit from the services that the hospice provides.

Thank you—it is much appreciated.