Official Report · Committee

Continued Petitions

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Tuesday 9 February 2016 Public Petitions Committee About 11:45–12:15 Petitions 20 contributions · 6 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

20 contributions

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

The next item of business is consideration of 15 continued petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. As members know, Gil Paterson has taken an interest in the petition. I will give him the opportunity to comment.

At our last meeting, we asked for an update on when a meeting would take place between the Scottish Government, representatives of the health board and the hospice. I understand that that meeting has now taken place and that all parties appear to be content with the progress that is being made even if a solution has not yet been found. That is the context in which we will discuss the petition this morning.

Does Gil Paterson want to raise anything in particular to add to our consideration?

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie

link

I will highlight some points. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come here again.

The accountancy review must be undertaken sooner rather than later because there is an in-built disadvantage—I will come to that again in a moment or two. My big concern is about the joint boards. What will be the boards’ notional way of deciding on the appropriate funding, remembering that each hospice is in a different place? If there is an in-built disadvantage, it will be very difficult for St Margaret’s to come up with a cohesive argument for an individual joint board, so the situation must be sorted very soon.

There have been difficulties with the choice of accountancy firm. Looking at what has been presented to you, I know that it seems that we are getting somewhere, but we have not yet decided on an accountancy firm. The last time that I was at the committee, I suggested—maybe the committee will endorse this—that we use our weight of opinion to tell the Government that, if it wants to look outside Scotland for an accountancy firm, that is fine but it might be difficult. Perhaps we should suggest that a chair be put in place who would take the matter on board. We could, for example, approach a retired High Court judge who may have had some contact or contract with the Government or the health board to appoint an accountancy firm. That is just me speaking—I am not speaking on behalf of the hospice and I have not been briefed on that possibility, but I think that that might be a solution to move the matter on so that it does not get stuck.

I just went through some of the information that I gathered previously. If you will indulge me, convener, I will quote from a paper from 10 July 2015. These are the figures for the funding per bed at hospices that are all in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The figure for Accord Hospice is £159,891; the figure for Ardgowan Hospice is £153,083; I do not have a figure for the Marie Curie hospice; the figure for the Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice is £140,471 per bed; and the figure for St Vincent’s Hospice comes in at £131,377. The figure for St Margaret’s is £53,328.

The formula is crucial, but nobody that I have contacted, including the health board, can tell me what the formula is. The only way that we can get to the bottom of it is to have a proper review by an accountancy firm. I have posed the question, and you can clearly see that the formula is not based on the number of beds. The number of beds at the other hospices that I have mentioned is, respectively, 8, 8, 14 and 8, whereas it is 26 at St Margaret’s.

The petitioner’s letter says:

“The appointment of a firm of accountants was discussed in light of the fact that many of those accountancy firms approached by St Margaret of Scotland Hospice felt unable to participate in an accountancy review due to a conflict, by having carried out work in the past for either the Scottish Government or NHSGGC.”

I do not want that to block progress. If we cannot find someone, my suggestion might get round that. It is good that there is a willingness to share information. However, we are talking about public money and, if there is information on each of the hospices, it should be published. That will let the committee see the figures and make a judgment.

We are coming to the end of a parliamentary session and there might be pressure on the committee to close the petition. Before it is closed, though, we should see that the outcome of the review is published. After that, I will be content and I will not come back to the committee to ask it to keep the petition open.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

Thank you, Gil. The committee is under no pressure to close a petition because we are coming to the end of a parliamentary session. Petitions can be carried over, so that is not part of our consideration. The consideration for members is what the committee is usefully contributing to achieving an outcome. Is there anything else that we can do to allow a solution to be reached in this case?

I should also make it clear that we do not adjudicate in individual cases. It is not in our remit to do that. We are trying to identify where there might be problems that can be brought to the attention of the Scottish Government or any other authority over which the Parliament has any jurisdiction in order to improve administration, resolve wider issues or correct policy. It is about not whether the petition could be continued but whether the committee can usefully contribute to the outcome of any decision that is made. That will be a matter for the Government, the health board and the hospice.

Gil Paterson suggested that the committee could recommend that a chair be put in place or that an independent way of assessing the matter be found. I am not sure that we have the capacity to do that. We could suggest that the Government consider that, but it would not be for us to make that decision. We could do that and then not do anything else with the petition. Our final say on the petition would be that there should be some independent assessment.

Things have moved on since 2006, when the petition was first lodged, in that the Government is now committed to a review of hospice funding in its strategic framework on palliative and end-of-life care. The individual dispute over the financing of the beds at St Margaret’s has not been resolved, but the overall policy and structure in which it is all taking place is clearly different from what it was when the petition was lodged. Do committee members think that there is something useful that we can contribute to resolving the situation?

12:15

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie

link

I think that keeping the petition open has brought us to where we are. I fear that, if it had been closed when the Government recommended that it should be, we would not be where we are now. It would be extremely useful to keep it open for the simple, straightforward reason that the power of this committee and the regard in which it is held by the Parliament are what have got us where we are. That is what I really believe.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

I appreciate that that is your consideration. It has just been brought to my attention that the suggestion of seeking an independent arbiter or chair to draw things together has already been put to the Scottish Government by the committee. I am not sure that we got a conclusive answer, but that suggestion has already been made and it did not meet with a positive response.

We have tried the suggested option before but it has not been taken forward. However, Gil Paterson seems to believe that just keeping the petition open is making a difference. Do the members of the committee believe that that is the case?

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East

link

I certainly see the merit in Gil Paterson’s request to continue to monitor the situation prior to closing the petition, with a view to keeping a watching brief and waiting for the outcome of the review of the technical accounting issue that is in dispute. However, I think that the committee has come to the end of any influence that it has on the issue. It might be worth waiting to see the outcome of the review before we consider closing the petition.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland

link

I pay tribute to Gil Paterson and the previous constituency member, Des McNulty, both of whom have pursued the issue and led on the petition—with the support, I hope, of other MSPs. There was undoubtedly a deeply ingrained suspicion that there was a prejudice in the health board, which then led to a mutual animosity between the parties. That meant that, although there was a working agreement previously in place, albeit in theory, nothing ever materialised from it and time continued to pass.

The committee sought to get the cabinet secretary with responsibility for health more directly involved in the issue. However, both previous cabinet secretaries who held the position after the petition was lodged were reluctant to take that direct role and very much sought to have the various parties continue to negotiate to a point. The current cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, has intervened more directly and the Scottish Government has become more directly involved. I understand Gil Paterson’s point about the historical suspicion. At certain points during the progress of the petition, the fact that this committee continued to take an interest in it was politically resonant.

I am not sure what I would invite the committee to do other than simply keep the petition open on the basis that that might still be a productive thing to do. The way is open for a future petition to be lodged in the event that all of this goes pear shaped. However, it seems to me that, because the sword of Damocles that was hanging over the hospice no longer hangs there and the direct involvement of the Scottish Government that we sought is now secured, the efforts of Mr Paterson and others in relation to the future of St Margaret’s have been, in many ways, successful. I am not a cheerleader for either proposition, but I find it difficult to see what I would be asking the committee to do—that is the key point.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

That is exactly my point. I should probably declare an interest in that I am the convener of the cross-party group on palliative care and want to see the advancement of the hospice movement. However, much as I want to see the matter resolved, the committee cannot get involved in an individual dispute between any given health board and a particular hospice, although we can seek to ensure that any issues that come out of that dispute are addressed by the Government.

Having looked at all the correspondence and the actions that have been taken so far, I suggest that we, as a committee, are doing nothing useful. Anything that is progressing the issue is in the hands of the parties concerned. Even Gil Paterson’s suggestion is something that the committee has looked at before and tried to get on the table. To my mind, there is nothing else that the committee can usefully do at this time that would make the situation better.

As Jackson Carlaw said, if things go wrong and there is a failure to agree, the petitioners are at liberty to come back again to raise the issue. Also, given that the Scottish Government has a framework in which the totality of funding is being considered, the issues have moved on. Although there may be an individual dispute, I genuinely believe that we are at the end of the road in relation to what the committee can do.

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East

link

I bring the committee’s attention to the final sentence of Shona Robison’s letter of 19 January:

“I hope to be in a position to update the Public Petitions Committee more fully soon.”

An update is to come, so we should keep the petition open until that is received—unless I am told otherwise.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

The information that I have is that the action points on which the petition was raised have been progressed. Therefore, any response to a query from us would be a continuation of a discussion on the action points, and we are not progressing those action points; rather, they have been acted on.

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East

link

I see that, convener, but—

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

We have closed other petitions on similar grounds. I am trying to be fair to every petitioner, not just to one. Other people out there would say that the committee closed a petition in similar circumstances, because it had usefully arrived at the end of what it could do, and they accept that even if they are disappointed. Those people might ask why we were keeping a petition open in exactly the same circumstances and not asking for anything more to be done. If nothing else, we must be consistent. Occasionally, we will leave people disappointed, but we do not necessarily help ourselves if we are inconsistent in disappointing some people and not others.

Hanzala Malik Lab Glasgow

link

With all respect, we have done a lot. We have gone out of our way with this petition. I recall supporting it on at least two occasions when I thought that it would be the last time that it came before us. The matter seems to be dragging on without our achieving anything other than what we have achieved already. I therefore concur with your suggestion, convener. The petition is past its sell-by date.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

Do other members have a view? Other than Angus MacDonald, who suggests that we continue the petition, everyone else believes that the petition has come to the end of the road. I do not want to divide the committee; I am trying to get a consensus. However, if we cannot get agreement, we will have to make a decision.

Angus MacDonald SNP Falkirk East

link

I sense that I am in the minority. Reluctantly, I agree to close the petition.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland

link

I am in the same position as Angus MacDonald. However, I have seen the petition almost all the way through the process and there is a point at which we must say, as a committee, that we need to stop because we cannot progress it any further. We must also bear in mind the fact that the Scottish Government has committed to doing things with the hospice and the health board.

I am not asking for the petition to remain open; I am asking that, in closing the petition, we remind the petitioner that they are at liberty to lodge a new petition within the specified period and that we write to the Scottish Government, advising it that we have closed the petition but reminding it that there are certain things that it committed to undertake in conjunction with the health board and the hospice. We should state that we hope that the board that has been established by the Government recognises the issues that have been raised by St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in relation to the allocation of resources to hospices in Scotland. As you said, convener, a number of hospices might find themselves in a similar situation. I would support closing the petition if we were to ask the Government to take on board those other issues and seek assurances.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

We have closed petitions on those terms before.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland

link

Given the sentence in the cabinet secretary’s letter to which Angus MacDonald has referred, we might close the petition but ask the cabinet secretary whether, instead of writing to the Public Petitions Committee more fully on the progress that is taking place, she could write to the constituency member and to the regional members for West Scotland who are directly interested in the progress of the petition so that that progress could be kept alive by the political representatives in the region if not by the Public Petitions Committee.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill

link

I see members nodding. We appear to have reached an agreement.

I offer Gil Paterson my personal thanks for the effort that he has put into supporting the petition. It is to your credit, Gil, that you have stuck so doggedly with it that we are still here, so far on, making this decision. There may still be issues that the committee will have to look at in the future, but they will have to be new issues—that is the point that we are trying to make. Nothing that the committee is actively doing at present will resolve the issue, and we have closed the petition on that basis. Nevertheless, your determination is the reason that we are still discussing it, and I thank you for that.

Gil Paterson SNP Clydebank and Milngavie

link

I am disappointed, convener. You knew that I would be disappointed. Nevertheless, it would be remiss of me to go away from here without thanking John Wilson, Jackson Carlaw and all the other members of the committee for supporting me and the petition. You have seen what is wrong and that something needs to happen, and it would be wrong of me to walk out of here and not place on record my thanks. Although I am disappointed, I really appreciate the time that has been spent considering the petition and the due diligence that you have brought to it. I thank you for that.

In this meeting

Everything on 9 Feb 2016 →

10:00 Decision on Taking Business in Private Procedure · 1
10:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 131
11:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 99
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 20
12:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 1
12:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
12:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 35
12:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 5
12:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 5
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 1
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 9
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 6
12:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 1
12:45 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.