Official Report · Committee

Continued Petitions

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Tuesday 22 September 2015 Public Petitions Committee About 11:15 Petitions 9 contributions · 5 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

9 contributions

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

Agenda item 4 is consideration of eight continued petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members have a note from the clerks, which is paper 5, and the submissions that have been received.

I welcome to the meeting Gil Paterson, who has a constituency interest in the petition and has been involved with it for a considerable time. Before I open up the discussion on the petition to the committee, I think it worth asking Gil Paterson to make a few points.

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie

link

I would certainly be grateful for that, convener.

I will start at the end, by making my appeal to the committee to keep the petition open. I note that the committee has received a letter from the Government. I should highlight the fact that I am not in the Government; I just happen to be a member of the party of government, which is an entirely different thing. Like every member, I have to look after the interests of my constituents and I do not believe that it would be in the interests of my constituents for the petition to be closed at this time.

For anyone who does not know, St Margaret of Scotland Hospice is the oldest hospice in Scotland. It has just celebrated its 65th anniversary. Sister Rita Dawson, the lady—or, I should say, nun, although she is also a lady—who runs the establishment, has just received an honour from the Queen, and she will also be given the freedom of West Dunbartonshire. We should think about that before any consideration is made. We owe it to the hospice to go the extra mile. The committee has been patient and supportive over a long period, and now would be the wrong time to close the petition.

The committee has received a letter from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. I have had a meeting with the health board, along with the former provost of West Dunbartonshire, Denis Agnew. From looking at the contents of the letter and from the discussions that have been had, I feel that there is clearly a willingness on the part of the health board to get this issue off the table. The health board has moved, as has been acknowledged by the hospice and me, and we are certainly grateful for that. The meeting and the letter suggest that we have a willing partner, and of course the hospice itself is very willing.

Where do we go from here? Clearly, we need a person of some stature to oversee the process. There is a problem relating to the number of chartered accountants that have done business with either the health board or the hospice but I believe that someone of public stature could oversee the process, although a chartered accountant would still be needed to do the evaluation. Finding such a person would make an enormous difference.

I do not think that the health board will be difficult at all. I believe that the thought is that something has been missed and actually, if that is the case, the health board will, in a way, be relieved and offer no opposition at all. I believe that simply because, as the hospice has acknowledged, the health board has moved. For the issue to be concluded satisfactorily, the position vis-à-vis other hospices has to evaluated. There was a promise to evaluate that to find out the exact position, but that work has never been completed. Until that happens, there is a prospect that the issue will never be sorted. We need an evaluation to see exactly where we are and then, based on that, a determination can be made. For those reasons, the committee should keep the petition open.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

Members have been keeping an eye on the issue as it has moved forward. I open up the discussion to suggestions from members.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland

link

I have to say that I am slightly uncomfortable that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport has almost tried to direct the committee in its decision making. I do not know whether that sets a precedent, but it is not a regular thing.

This petition goes back to 2007, and it is difficult to remember what a contentiously hot issue it has been over many years. In that period, chief executives of the health board have come and gone, as have MSPs who have been associated with the petition. The reason why the petition has stayed open all this time is that, notwithstanding what seemed to be a commonsense route through, the various parties concerned found it extraordinarily difficult. At one stage, there was a definite lack of trust because of the way in which the health board was approaching the issue. From what Mr Paterson says, that seems to have been alleviated.

My view is that, if we are not closing the petition now, we are very close to the point when the committee should close it. However, given the on-going lack of conviction about good will prevailing, I would like the arbiter and auditor to be appointed so that we know that we have taken it to that stage. I would then be comfortable about closing the petition. We would not necessarily need to await the outcome of the process. At that point, it would be reasonable for us to say that we had achieved the objective that arose out of all the difficulties that have presented themselves at the various stages in the long time in which the petition has been rumbling along.

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East

link

I note the Scottish Government’s suggestion that we close the petition, which I have to say is an unusual response—we do not get many of those from the Government. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that the health board has moved on the issue. Although I acknowledge the health secretary’s suggestion, I think that there is merit in keeping the petition open to allow the committee to monitor progress in the short term. I am therefore happy to keep the petition open.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland

link

I am one of those members who have been involved with the petition all the way through, as I was a substitute committee member in November 2007, when the petition was originally presented.

My colleagues have commented on the final paragraph in the cabinet secretary’s letter. That warrants some comment, particularly the point that Mr Carlaw and Mr MacDonald have referred to. The cabinet secretary suggests that we close the petition, which is perhaps a hint that we should not close it.

The serious point in that final paragraph is the issue about the Government being

“unsuccessful in progressing the expert accountancy review.”

I would like to know why the Government has been unsuccessful in proceeding with that. I know that there were issues about who should be appointed to carry out the review, but I hope that we have come to a stage at which all sides can agree. As Gil Paterson has said, if we could get the right person to carry out the review, we could move forward substantially. I would like to find out why the Scottish Government has been unsuccessful in getting the issue resolved. After all, we received its response in July.

Things have moved on; the health board and the hospice have moved on; and we could reach an early resolution. However, as Gil Paterson has made clear, the review has to be carried out to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, so that we can move on and close this petition in a way that ensures that the petitioner feels that the issue has been dealt with in a way that accommodates the petition’s initial intent.

We could write to the Government to ask it not only to hold the review but to set a timetable for the review to be carried out, so that we are not sitting here considering the petition in eight or nine years’ time because the review has not been carried out. I think that the review could be carried out quickly, and that Government could give us a timescale for that.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

The consensus appears to be that we do not want to put this to bed yet—pun intended. We will write to the Government in the terms that John Wilson has suggested and ask for an explanation of why the issue has not been resolved and, if nothing else, an indication of a timescale by which the review can be expected to have concluded. In the meantime, we will keep the petition open. That might disappoint the cabinet secretary, but we will make her aware of the fact that the committee was surprised by her suggestion.

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie

link

It does not disappoint me, convener.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

Do we agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

In this meeting

Everything on 22 Sep 2015 →

10:00 Interests Procedure · 2
10:00 Convener Procedure · 4
10:00 New Petitions Petitions · 30
10:15 New Petitions Petitions · 50
11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 39
11:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 9
11:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 11
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4

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.