Current Petitions

I reconvene the meeting and thank members for their patience. The next petition is PE1105, for which I welcome Gil Paterson MSP, who is working for his money this afternoon. The petition is by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to guarantee the retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30-bed unit at the hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care at hospices in the context of Health Department letter HDL(2003)18 are fair and reasonable.A fair amount of correspondence is included in the papers. Some issues are contested quite strongly in the submissions—that is the best euphemism to describe the situation. I am happy to hear members' views on how to handle the petition. At a previous meeting we took oral evidence, so we have a substantial grasp of the issues. I am keen to have a sense of where members would like to take the petition. I ask Gil Paterson to speak first, after which committee members will respond.

I agree. I have concerns about the way in which hospices depend on fundraising, which is one of the issues relating to the catchment area of St Margaret's. The service should be provided; it should not be left to people to fundraise for it. Can we flag that up, and find out whether there is a long-term plan to ensure equity of access for people, regardless of where they live and what their hospice catchment area is?

From what I have read, issues around the hospice are being contested at length. I have read a lot of reports about difficult issues over the years, but in this case St Margaret's and the health board perceive the process of events markedly differently. The health board's chief executive has indicated that he is willing to have further discussions. Part of the debate is about what is up for discussion in negotiating terms. It would be helpful to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to try to pull everything together to get some clarity. I am sure that issues will be contested at the other end, regarding the use of the other hospital in west Glasgow and the retention of facilities. There are no angels in this debate. However, we need to find ways for people to get round the table to sort matters out. Another aspect is equity and the question whether the figure of 50 per cent should be used or whether a different formula should be developed. We cannot resolve the issue instantly, given the recent announcements on budgets and so on, but we can flag the matter for consideration. There will be future spending rounds and policy priorities, which all Governments have the right to pursue. We can ask the Government whether there is a potential long-term shift in that regard. From memory, I think that the argument was that St Margaret's provided a level of service that was not being fully funded. That, however, is a matter for dispute, judging from the correspondence.We need to get cracking and find some solutions. The St Margaret's board and staff will need to address whether the hospice needs to redefine some of what it does. It will also have to be ascertained whether the health board is required to revisit some issues before closing the door. The health secretary's intervention might encourage progress; that is the best way to proceed. In addition, I encourage individual members who might have influence over some of the decision makers to try to persuade them.Are there any other views on the petition?

Gil, do you have any final comments?

As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I always seek to find healing words—except when Kenny Gibson is up, but there we are. This is an important issue, and although we cannot easily resolve it, we need to explore the background and the options that are available. Members indicated agreement.