Parliament Workbench
Data: Official Report to 12 Nov 2026

Official Report · Committee

Current Petitions

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Tuesday 3 March 2015 Public Petitions Committee About 10:15 Petitions 19 contributions · 6 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

19 contributions
John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the Public Petitions Committee and remind you to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. Apologies have been received from Jackson Carlaw.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members will recall that consideration of the petition was deferred from our meeting in Dumfries to enable Gil Paterson to attend and to feed in any comments on behalf of the hospice. This morning, members have received an email from the petitioner; they also have a note by the clerk and two Scottish Government letters. I welcome Gil Paterson, who has a constituency interest in the petition.

I invite contributions from members.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

I am rather concerned by the submission that we received this morning, which is dated 2 March. I understand that agreement was reached between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and St Margaret’s hospice to carry out an impartial review of the funding, but from the submission that we have received, it is clear that actions are being taken behind the scenes that are having a severely detrimental impact on the ability to make an honest and impartial assessment of the funding to St Margaret’s hospice. I refer, in particular, to the comment at the top of page 2 of the email, where it is alleged that Catriona Renfrew of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board indicated that the board should not share the information regarding the funding of other hospices in the health board area.

I think that that goes to the heart of the matter that the committee has been considering over the past eight years, which is about the fairness and equity of funding for hospices in the health board area. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has repeatedly procrastinated in giving an honest answer to St Margaret’s hospice. If the statements that are made in the submission that we have received today are true, as a committee we should write to the board to seek clarification of the comments that are made in the submission to find out whether a fair and honest assessment is being made of the funding for St Margaret’s in comparison with the funding for other hospices in the area. Unless we get that comparison, which must be open to review, we will find that St Margaret’s will still be being dealt with unfairly and unjustly by the board.

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East
link

I am inclined to agree with John Wilson. Judging from the submission that we have received, it would certainly be a good idea to seek clarification from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board with a view to the issue of funding being dealt with on a more equal basis.

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie
link

I thank the committee for deferring the petition as it did. The hospice and I are very grateful for that and commend the committee for the way in which it handled the matter.

John Wilson has highlighted one of the two main issues that the hospice and the letter have raised, which I do not think are insurmountable. First, on the sharing of information, how can a third party work out what the formula is if it does not have all the information? It is entirely right that a third party is looking at the issue and measuring what each hospice gets from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, and it is a must that the formula and the numbers be provided. That is an easy fix.

The second issue might be slightly more difficult to address. The petitioner talks about Grant Thornton and impartiality. Grant Thornton has carried out work on behalf of both the Scottish Government and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, whereas we were hoping that someone would be appointed who had no connection to either party. That issue might be a bit more difficult to address, but I hope that it is not insurmountable.

I draw the committee’s attention to the comments in the letter that are attributed to the chief executive, Sister Rita, whose work in the hospice is renowned. The work of the hospice itself is renowned, as it has a terrific record and every inspection produces impeccable results. Sister Rita recognises that, through good hard work on the part of different people, the gap has closed over the past year, and the hospice appreciates the work that has been done. I believe that we are close to a final conclusion. I do not think that I am speaking out of turn in saying that there is not far to go before the issue is resolved.

I appreciate and welcome the point that John Wilson makes. What he suggests might bring clarity about where the main blockages are. Maybe I have faith in what has happened so far, but I think that there is a willingness among all parties to come to a conclusion on the matter. The committee’s assistance has played a big part in that and I ask that, besides what John Wilson has asked for, the petition be kept open.

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

My understanding is that the parties agreed to Grant Thornton undertaking the review—is that correct?

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie
link

I do not think that that is quite correct. The parties agreed that a chartered accountancy firm would look at the issues, but I do not think that the hospice ever accepted that that firm would be Grant Thornton. If you look at the history of the relationship between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and the hospice, you will see that the hospice has always taken a cautious approach.

I might be wrong, but I think that the hospice never agreed to Grant Thornton being used. However, it did what I would call its due diligence to ascertain what Grant Thornton was and so on. The process was not simple or straightforward and there was no yes/no answer—I have seen the correspondence. In my view, if Grant Thornton had answered in the affirmative, in the way that it did in the last email, there might not have been a problem. However, it had to be asked several times whether there had been a conflict of interest in relation not to the Government but to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and that is the element that is more difficult to solve.

I am fairly certain that the hospice never agreed to Grant Thornton.

Hanzala Malik Lab Glasgow
link

I am quite clear that we should continue this petition. However, I am puzzled about what the agreement of the committee is in relation to certain instructions. If you are looking for a third party to resolve an issue, who will instruct that third party? Who will pick up the cost for the third party to do that? How long will it take? I would like someone to answer those questions for me.

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

I believe that the committee has the right to write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to ask for that information. I would also like to find out whether the hospice raised in writing its concerns about Grant Thornton being part of the review committee.

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie
link

I think that we can provide that information. I can also answer the question that Mr Malik raised. Money has been set aside for the third party to conduct the work. There is no question but that it will be paid for. The money is already allocated.

Hanzala Malik Lab Glasgow
link

That is helpful. However, I would still like to see an end date on this petition. The situation seems to have been going on for a long time, and I think that it is unhealthy to allow it to fester. That will affect people’s employment and, of course, service delivery. I am keen for this to come to an early conclusion. Can we do something to speed up the process?

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

I have sat on the committee throughout its consideration of the petition. The last time that we talked about it, the committee was clear about its wish to seek an early resolution. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board seems to have procrastinated. First, it talked about provision at Blowarthill, and then there were other issues. In the papers that are before us today, there are two letters from two different cabinet secretaries for health that are dated almost exactly a year apart—one is from 17 February 2015 and one is from 19 February 2014. Both letters say that the cabinet secretaries are moving forward with the investigation and the review of the funding.

To add to the question that has been asked about the Grant Thornton issue, if we write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, could we ask it how many companies it put forward to act as investigators into this matter and whether Grant Thornton was the only company that was presented to St Margaret’s hospice for consideration? That would be useful. Part of the difficulty with calling for someone impartial to do the review is that there will be very few companies that will be completely impartial, because it is likely that they will have worked for either the health board or the Government. We should find out whether the hospice was provided with a list of organisations so that it could, as Gil Paterson said, do its due diligence and decide which organisation it believed would conduct a genuinely impartial review of the services that were being delivered and the funding that was being made available.

10:15

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

We will consider the action that we will take on the petition. Do we agree to write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board about the latest email and the issues in it? We will also ask whether it alone appointed Grant Thornton, or whether the Scottish Government did that. The third point was that we could write to the hospice to ask whether, at any given time, it raised concerns about Grant Thornton with Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board or the Scottish Government.

Hanzala Malik Lab Glasgow
link

I want to draw the health board’s attention to the fact that we really want a conclusion. I do not like all this ping-ponging; I want a result. We have had enough ping-ponging. We need to bring the petition to a conclusion and we should be looking to suggest a closing date. It is important for us to have a benchmark now. We cannot just keep going on endlessly.

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

I know that the petition has been going since 2007 but other issues have been raised today and it is only right that we do what is requested. When that information comes back, there will be recommendations and we can then decide whether to continue the petition or close it.

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

If we write to any organisation, we expect to get a reply within 20 days. If that happens this month, the petition will no doubt be back before the committee sometime in April.

Hanzala Malik Lab Glasgow
link

I simply stress my point that we need to bring the petition to a conclusion. We need to suggest to the health board that we want to draw the petition to an end rather than go through another set of correspondence.

John Pentland Lab The Convener · Motherwell and Wishaw
link

In reaching that conclusion, the committee has to be made aware of all the facts. If we write to the organisations that we have identified, we will expect a response that will allow us to bring the petition back to the committee in April. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In this meeting

Everything on 3 Mar 2015 →
  1. 10:15 Current Petitions Petitions · 19
  2. 10:30 Current Petitions Petitions · 17
  3. 10:30 New Petitions Petitions · 25
  4. 10:45 New Petitions Petitions · 13
  5. 10:45 New Petitions Petitions · 26

The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.