Current Petitions

With the committee's indulgence, we will deal now with PE1105, which relates to St Margaret of Scotland hospice. We have been joined by an elected member who wants to speak to the petition but who has another commitment to go to.Representations were made to us on the hospice by a series of individuals. I welcome Des McNulty, who has spoken to the committee about the petition previously. There are still outstanding issues on the petition, which I ask him briefly to identify.

I thank the committee for its forbearance in letting me speak to the petition now so that I can get away to another commitment.I will briefly rehash the issues. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has proposed the removal of continuing care patients from St Margaret of Scotland hospice, which currently has 30 continuing care beds and 30 palliative care beds. The hospice's view is that the removal of those continuing care beds to Blawarthill hospital a quarter of a mile down the road would place the hospice in severe financial difficulty and, perhaps even more important, go against all the policy frameworks on dealing with people who need end-of-life care. The people who are cared for at St Margaret's are well looked after and the hospice's provision is exemplary.More than 100,000 people signed the petition against the health board's proposals. Marjorie McCance, who is here today, co-ordinated the campaign. I think that the petition is the second biggest that there has been in Scotland in connection with a government-type decision; only the petition about the children's hospital in Glasgow was larger, which puts the campaign in perspective for members. If the situation remains unresolved, the petition on St Margaret's might end up with more signatures than the petition on the children's hospital received.I have been raising the issue for more than a year and the matter has certainly been in the public domain for a year, but NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has made no effort to justify its proposals. Local people feel huge antipathy towards the board, particularly if they have had a close connection with the hospice. The problem is that the Scottish Government, in the person of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, and the health board are not progressing the matter, which has been dragging on for a long time.I approached the board and the minister recently to ask for a meeting. They said that discussions are going on between the health board and the hospice. However, at the health board's behest, the fundamental point of principle, which is whether continuing care should remain at the hospice, has not been dealt with during the small number of meetings that have taken place. Financial technicalities to do with palliative care have been discussed, but the core strategic issue, which is whether a vital service should continue to be provided at St Margaret's, has not been discussed.I wanted to bring the committee up to speed on that. The health board and the Scottish Government have written to the committee to say that things are happening, but the core issue is not being addressed. I and the many people who signed the petition and feel strongly about the issue would appreciate any assistance from the Public Petitions Committee in highlighting that the core issue, which is the retention of continuing care provision at St Margaret's, must be addressed in principle. There is no point in having discussions about technicalities that might arise from a situation until the issue has been addressed in principle. The health board must stop saying that it is having meetings, given that the central issue is not being addressed at those meetings. It worries me that, in some months' time, the board might say that it had meetings but got nowhere. If the health board does not discuss the issue, the situation will not be resolved.The proposal remains to divert continuing care patients away from the hospice from April 2009, which is only seven months away. St Margaret's is labouring under that situation. It cannot plan its future, retain staff and operate properly while such a cloud remains on the horizon. I hope that the committee will write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to say that, on the basis of what it has heard, it believes that the situation cannot be left unresolved and must be sorted out, if necessary by her intervention.

The committee received a submission from the hospice, which is in members' papers. We should write to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to the cabinet secretary to say that we understand that profound issues remain outstanding and unresolved, which could have an impact on the hospice's support structures and viability.I am aware that Gil Paterson hoped to speak on the petition, but I do not know whether he can make it. I apologise if he has missed the opportunity to speak on an issue on which I know that he has spoken in the past.There is broad support for targeting the health board's role in holding more effective discussions. It would be useful if the minister could, as my mother used to say to me, jildi the process along. We will take the course of action that has been outlined.

Perhaps this is a case for independent scrutiny. If the health board is seen to be dragging its feet and not consulting people properly on a change in how their health care is delivered, it might be worth asking the minister whether she has considered that possibility.

That would certainly be worth considering.Another issue that has caused me great frustration is the fact that, on two or three occasions, the minister has written back to me to say that she does not think that it is appropriate to meet me individually or along with members of different political parties—I have made such an offer because, as far as I am concerned, it is a cross-party issue—to discuss matters. Basically, she says that she will not meet us until the health board has sorted out its position, but if I cannot get the health board to progress the matter, there is nothing that I can do. Ministers cannot hide behind that argument indefinitely. There must be a point at which, on a matter of concern to an elected member, ministers must agree to meet that member—or members—so that they can make representations about how the matter is dealt with. There is an issue of parliamentary protocol at stake, which I am beginning to get a bit exercised about.

We will see whether the suggested course of action can kick-start the process. The health board gave us a commitment that genuinely open discussions would take place with St Margaret's hospice to address the concerns that had been raised about its long-term future.