PE791, by Brian McAlorum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the criteria and funding mechanisms for national specialist services provided to NHS Scotland by individual health boards, given that the case involving the centre for integrative care at Glasgow homoeopathic hospital has shown that at the moment they are neither transparent nor effective.At its meeting on 8 December 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care, Greater Glasgow NHS Board, the national services advisory group, the Scotland Patients Association and the Scottish Association of Health Councils and to pass copies of the petition to the Health Committee and Professor David Kerr for information only.Do members have any comments on the correspondence?
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
NHS Scotland (National Specialist Services) (PE791)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 4
- Mike Watson Ind 2
- John Scott Con 1
- Rob Gibson SNP 1
The record
8 contributionsThe petition was prompted by NHS Greater Glasgow's proposal to close the 15-bed in-patient unit at the Glasgow homoeopathic hospital. Members might or might not be aware that, about a month ago, the board decided not to proceed with the proposal.However, the petition also raises more general issues. It is noticeable that the chief executive of NHS Argyll and Clyde, who is soon to be no more—I do not necessarily mean that personally, but it is probably the case—says that his board sees no reason for a review of the policy objectives of a national designation. I do not know why we wrote specifically to Argyll and Clyde, but I suspect that that view, which mirrors the Executive's response, is being put forward on behalf of the NHS centrally.My concern at not receiving a response from NHS Greater Glasgow is based not only on my concern for the unit, in relation to which a decision has been made, but more generally on the fact that, from time to time, ministers or organisations show the committee the discourtesy of not providing a response. Convener, I can only repeat my earlier point in saying that you could perhaps be proactive by phoning the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and asking him for a response, even though matters have moved on somewhat.
I am more than happy for that to be done. I will clarify why there was a response from Argyll and Clyde. We wrote to the national services advisory group, and the person who responded is based in Argyll and Clyde, which is why the letter came back on Argyll and Clyde headed notepaper. However, it is a centralised response. I am happy to take up the suggestion of contacting Greater Glasgow NHS Board.
We should do that, and perhaps we should consider that it might find it easier to come and speak to the committee directly if it is having difficulty in putting pen to paper. We would be grateful to hear from the board and it would not be unreasonable for it to make its views known to us.Perhaps it is just the mood that I am in this morning, but I am slightly discontent with the minister's views and explanation of the criteria for attracting funding. I do not accept those criteria because the hospital is there out of need. I welcome the volte-face on the closure of the 15-bed unit. It is difficult to provide expertise locally, albeit low-cost expertise, and that is why the hospital is there. I appreciate the minister's argument, but I do not accept that it is entirely reasonable.
My colleague Sandra White was prominent in the campaign to retain the homoeopathic hospital and would want me to say that she is glad that the petition has thrown the issue into the public light and perhaps prompted the volte-face, as John Scott called it.Harry Burns's view now that he is moving on to become the chief medical officer might be different from his view when he was in his Glasgow role. As the Kerr report considers specialist units of this sort, we might expect to get an answer from Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the new chief medical officer if at all possible.
That is a good suggestion and I am more than happy to find out whether there has been a change in perspective now that we have a change at the top. I am also happy to take up John Scott's suggestion that we offer Greater Glasgow NHS Board the opportunity to come here and speak to us directly. I will certainly make that offer. If it does not take it up, I would expect to receive some response not just because we are asking for it but as a matter of courtesy. The petition related to a decision that the board had to make and I would have thought that it would be in its interests to put in writing an explanation of how it arrived at its conclusions.
Even if the board did not want to respond before the decision was made, it could have done so in the six weeks that have passed since then.
Are members happy that we do that?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 28 Jun 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 28 June 2005 Petitions · 2
- New Petitions Petitions · 49
- New Petitions Petitions · 36
- New Petitions Petitions · 33
- New Petitions Petitions · 5
- New Petitions Petitions · 28
- New Petitions Petitions · 22
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
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.