St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the Public Petitions Committee and remind you to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. Apologies have been received from Jackson Carlaw.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members will recall that consideration of the petition was deferred from our meeting in Dumfries to enable Gil Paterson to attend and to feed in any comments on behalf of the hospice. This morning, members have received an email from the petitioner; they also have a note by the clerk and two Scottish Government letters. I welcome Gil Paterson, who has a constituency interest in the petition.
I invite contributions from members.
I am rather concerned by the submission that we received this morning, which is dated 2 March. I understand that agreement was reached between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and St Margaret’s hospice to carry out an impartial review of the funding, but from the submission that we have received, it is clear that actions are being taken behind the scenes that are having a severely detrimental impact on the ability to make an honest and impartial assessment of the funding to St Margaret’s hospice. I refer, in particular, to the comment at the top of page 2 of the email, where it is alleged that Catriona Renfrew of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board indicated that the board should not share the information regarding the funding of other hospices in the health board area.
I think that that goes to the heart of the matter that the committee has been considering over the past eight years, which is about the fairness and equity of funding for hospices in the health board area. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has repeatedly procrastinated in giving an honest answer to St Margaret’s hospice. If the statements that are made in the submission that we have received today are true, as a committee we should write to the board to seek clarification of the comments that are made in the submission to find out whether a fair and honest assessment is being made of the funding for St Margaret’s in comparison with the funding for other hospices in the area. Unless we get that comparison, which must be open to review, we will find that St Margaret’s will still be being dealt with unfairly and unjustly by the board.
I am quite happy to support John Wilson’s comments.
I am inclined to agree with John Wilson. Judging from the submission that we have received, it would certainly be a good idea to seek clarification from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board with a view to the issue of funding being dealt with on a more equal basis.
I thank the committee for deferring the petition as it did. The hospice and I are very grateful for that and commend the committee for the way in which it handled the matter.
John Wilson has highlighted one of the two main issues that the hospice and the letter have raised, which I do not think are insurmountable. First, on the sharing of information, how can a third party work out what the formula is if it does not have all the information? It is entirely right that a third party is looking at the issue and measuring what each hospice gets from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, and it is a must that the formula and the numbers be provided. That is an easy fix.
The second issue might be slightly more difficult to address. The petitioner talks about Grant Thornton and impartiality. Grant Thornton has carried out work on behalf of both the Scottish Government and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, whereas we were hoping that someone would be appointed who had no connection to either party. That issue might be a bit more difficult to address, but I hope that it is not insurmountable.
I draw the committee’s attention to the comments in the letter that are attributed to the chief executive, Sister Rita, whose work in the hospice is renowned. The work of the hospice itself is renowned, as it has a terrific record and every inspection produces impeccable results. Sister Rita recognises that, through good hard work on the part of different people, the gap has closed over the past year, and the hospice appreciates the work that has been done. I believe that we are close to a final conclusion. I do not think that I am speaking out of turn in saying that there is not far to go before the issue is resolved.
I appreciate and welcome the point that John Wilson makes. What he suggests might bring clarity about where the main blockages are. Maybe I have faith in what has happened so far, but I think that there is a willingness among all parties to come to a conclusion on the matter. The committee’s assistance has played a big part in that and I ask that, besides what John Wilson has asked for, the petition be kept open.
My understanding is that the parties agreed to Grant Thornton undertaking the review—is that correct?
I do not think that that is quite correct. The parties agreed that a chartered accountancy firm would look at the issues, but I do not think that the hospice ever accepted that that firm would be Grant Thornton. If you look at the history of the relationship between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and the hospice, you will see that the hospice has always taken a cautious approach.
I might be wrong, but I think that the hospice never agreed to Grant Thornton being used. However, it did what I would call its due diligence to ascertain what Grant Thornton was and so on. The process was not simple or straightforward and there was no yes/no answer—I have seen the correspondence. In my view, if Grant Thornton had answered in the affirmative, in the way that it did in the last email, there might not have been a problem. However, it had to be asked several times whether there had been a conflict of interest in relation not to the Government but to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and that is the element that is more difficult to solve.
I am fairly certain that the hospice never agreed to Grant Thornton.
I am quite clear that we should continue this petition. However, I am puzzled about what the agreement of the committee is in relation to certain instructions. If you are looking for a third party to resolve an issue, who will instruct that third party? Who will pick up the cost for the third party to do that? How long will it take? I would like someone to answer those questions for me.
I believe that the committee has the right to write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to ask for that information. I would also like to find out whether the hospice raised in writing its concerns about Grant Thornton being part of the review committee.
I think that we can provide that information. I can also answer the question that Mr Malik raised. Money has been set aside for the third party to conduct the work. There is no question but that it will be paid for. The money is already allocated.
That is helpful. However, I would still like to see an end date on this petition. The situation seems to have been going on for a long time, and I think that it is unhealthy to allow it to fester. That will affect people’s employment and, of course, service delivery. I am keen for this to come to an early conclusion. Can we do something to speed up the process?
I have sat on the committee throughout its consideration of the petition. The last time that we talked about it, the committee was clear about its wish to seek an early resolution. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board seems to have procrastinated. First, it talked about provision at Blowarthill, and then there were other issues. In the papers that are before us today, there are two letters from two different cabinet secretaries for health that are dated almost exactly a year apart—one is from 17 February 2015 and one is from 19 February 2014. Both letters say that the cabinet secretaries are moving forward with the investigation and the review of the funding.
To add to the question that has been asked about the Grant Thornton issue, if we write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, could we ask it how many companies it put forward to act as investigators into this matter and whether Grant Thornton was the only company that was presented to St Margaret’s hospice for consideration? That would be useful. Part of the difficulty with calling for someone impartial to do the review is that there will be very few companies that will be completely impartial, because it is likely that they will have worked for either the health board or the Government. We should find out whether the hospice was provided with a list of organisations so that it could, as Gil Paterson said, do its due diligence and decide which organisation it believed would conduct a genuinely impartial review of the services that were being delivered and the funding that was being made available.
10:15
We will consider the action that we will take on the petition. Do we agree to write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board about the latest email and the issues in it? We will also ask whether it alone appointed Grant Thornton, or whether the Scottish Government did that. The third point was that we could write to the hospice to ask whether, at any given time, it raised concerns about Grant Thornton with Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board or the Scottish Government.
I want to draw the health board’s attention to the fact that we really want a conclusion. I do not like all this ping-ponging; I want a result. We have had enough ping-ponging. We need to bring the petition to a conclusion and we should be looking to suggest a closing date. It is important for us to have a benchmark now. We cannot just keep going on endlessly.
I know that the petition has been going since 2007 but other issues have been raised today and it is only right that we do what is requested. When that information comes back, there will be recommendations and we can then decide whether to continue the petition or close it.
What timeframe do you suggest for that to happen?
If we write to any organisation, we expect to get a reply within 20 days. If that happens this month, the petition will no doubt be back before the committee sometime in April.
I simply stress my point that we need to bring the petition to a conclusion. We need to suggest to the health board that we want to draw the petition to an end rather than go through another set of correspondence.
In reaching that conclusion, the committee has to be made aware of all the facts. If we write to the organisations that we have identified, we will expect a response that will allow us to bring the petition back to the committee in April. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Proposed Cockenzie Energy Park (PE1537)
The next petition is PE1537, by Shona Brash on behalf of the Coastal Regeneration Alliance, on the proposed energy park at Cockenzie. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
I welcome Iain Gray to the meeting. He has a constituency interest in the petition.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to the petition once again.
The committee will see that the marine energy park project is continuing. That is clear from a number of the submissions from stakeholders, not least that from Scottish Enterprise, which makes it clear that it is deciding on the next steps based on an assessment of market interest, the outcome of on-going technical feasibility work and so on. It is clear that the project continues.
The submissions also make it clear that the petitioners do not feel that they have received the assurances that they sought—or assurances that they can accept—regarding consultation in the future. A lot of the submissions try to suggest that consultation has taken place, in spite of the fact that the petitioners and the petition have made it clear to the committee that the community does not accept that.
It is also clear that the petitioners do not believe that there are indications that proper regard will be given to the community’s aspirations for the site—aspirations that are quite well developed and were presented to the committee when it considered the petition at an earlier stage. The truth is that the community around the site, in Cockenzie and Port Seton, remains very much in the dark as to what is happening. That is what led to the campaign and support for the petition in the first place.
I therefore suggest that the committee continues the petition and further interrogates the situation. The committee could help to provide some clarity for the local community by either continuing the petition and seeking evidence or referring the petition to an appropriate committee. My preference is for the former, but obviously it is for members of the committee to decide. However, I strongly request that the committee considers continuing the petition, as the situation has not resolved itself.
The issue of energy supply has been in the news agenda for a number of days recently, not least because of the possible need for a large combined cycle gas turbine somewhere in Scotland. The major obstacle to that is the transmission charging regime, which discriminates against new electricity generation in Scotland.
The national planning framework 3 is basically a Government wish list, for want of a better term. There are quite a number of projects in my constituency on that wish list that may or may not come to fruition. I take on board Iain Gray’s point that the Cockenzie energy park project seems to be continuing as far as Scottish Power is concerned, and it is clear that the Coastal Regeneration Alliance is not taking any chances regarding NPF3 not moving the project forward.
Given that the issue of energy generation is hotting up, to coin a phrase, it might be an idea to refer the petition to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I am not definite about this, but I imagine that it will be doing some significant work on energy supply in the future.
I am happy to support Angus MacDonald’s recommendation, mainly because the issue is in the remit of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. It involves the aspects of energy, the local economy, tourism, historic value and environmental impact. I think that that committee could do a far better job than we could, because the petition falls within its remit.
Because the issue is of such high significance and people are still working on the project and we do not have the full package, it may be premature to send the petition to another committee. I would rather get all the facts before we make that decision. I am minded perhaps to continue the petition at this early stage and wait to see the final case for what we are trying to achieve before we refer the petition on. There is a lot of information still to come—tasks are still going on—and I would like to see the results first so that we can see what the best way forward is. I am happy to continue the petition.
I think that there is a way between the two options. It seems to be a fluid situation. Iain Gray is quite correct that there has been almost a democratic deficit, and the Government does appear to have a wish list. It seems that Scottish Power and Scottish Enterprise are operating at a level that is perhaps not taking on board the clear views of the local people. Equally, however, I understand that this is a moveable feast.
Am I correct to say that, if it is not today, it will be any day now that the towers are due to be demolished? I think that I saw that somewhere in my constituency, as it affects the vista.
It is the towers, not the chimneys.
Yes. Things are moving there.
It seems to me that to refer the petition to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee would be more appropriate, assuming that it would accept it—it could be remitted back. I do not know whether there is a way of satisfying Hanzala Malik’s concern that the petition be kept alive by giving it to a committee that might be more appropriate, given that it is part of a wider issue, as Angus MacDonald correctly said. However, the petition has highlighted that there is a local democratic deficit that needs to be addressed.
The consensus seems to be that we should refer the petition to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. My understanding is that, even though we are referring it, the petition remains open. Is that right?
For clarification, if we refer the petition to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, it will then rest with that committee to make deliberations on it, and the only information that we will get back from that committee will be about what action it has taken. If the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee decides to close the petition, we will have no further jurisdiction over it.
That is why I suggested that, initially, we should keep it open to see what new information comes in before we decide to send it on. I do not think that the time is right for it to be sent on as it stands. Local concerns need to be addressed. Let us allow that to happen. It will not do any harm to keep it open at this stage.
I appreciate that there is a consensus among committee members that the petition should not be closed but should be continued. That is welcome. I said that it is, of course, for the committee to decide how to deal with the petition, but I also said that my preference would be for the committee to take evidence. Perhaps it is worth while for me to explain my reason for that.
The thrust of the petition is about the reluctance of the local community to have an industrial development of such a scale foisted upon them. That is how it feels to them. It is more about what happens to the site and to their community than about the potential importance for Scotland’s energy strategy of an energy park at that site or another site. There seems to be some merit in continuing to explore the nature of the consultation and how things have been taken forward before the petition is referred on. However, I defer to the committee. It is the committee’s decision.
Okay. What action do we want to take, colleagues?
Given the comments by the local member, if there is concern about referring the petition to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee immediately, I would be content to seek further information from Scottish Enterprise and East Lothian Council and to request that the public consultations on the development be extended. However, that would be with the proviso that, ultimately, the petition will be referred to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for further investigation.
We might be able to take some informal soundings from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Notwithstanding the legitimate comments that Iain Gray made, it appears to me that consideration by that committee would be more appropriate because, although the petition is site specific, it is likely to have more general relevance. We need to balance projects on the Government’s wish list and consider not just the site that concerns the petitioners but other sites in Angus MacDonald’s constituency and elsewhere, so the Economy, Energy and Tourism committee would be more effective than we would.
However, I understand John Wilson’s point that there is no point in us remitting the petition to that committee if it then says that it is too busy to do anything. The worst situation for Iain Gray’s constituents would be for nothing to happen because we had got rid of the petition but the other committee did not accept it.
As Angus MacDonald said, we could seek further information and make some discreet inquiries about the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I tend to agree with him that that committee is likely to be looking at energy in the round, and it could consider the petition as a factor within that wider remit, which would be more appropriate than a standalone investigation by us. If we keep the petition going for a few weeks pending a letter to Scottish Enterprise and some informal discussions, that would be a suitable course of action.
10:30
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that we should keep the petition open and write to East Lothian Council and Scottish Enterprise to find out what is happening.
As Angus MacDonald pointed out, NPF3 is, like NPF1 and NPF2, a wish list developed by the Scottish Government. It has allocated no actual funding to the proposals, and whether they go ahead is down to local circumstances and arrangements. It would therefore be useful to write to those two agencies to get some clarification about exactly where they are in the process. After all, although Scottish Power is the main operator of Cockenzie, it has indicated in its response that it has had no negotiations or discussions about taking forward the power plant in any shape or form or about being involved in the energy park.
In seeking clarification from those two agencies, however, we also need to ask for a clear outline of the consultations that they intend to undertake with the local community in relation to any proposals for the site and to ensure that there are guarantees that the community has the right that it has always had to object to any proposals. I hope that, if the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill goes through in the first half of the year, the community will have greater powers under that legislation to challenge any such proposals and, indeed, to come up with its own, as it did at the end of last year.
I therefore propose that we write to those two agencies. As Kenny MacAskill suggested, our committee clerks could have an informal word with the clerks to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee to find out whether that committee has time in its calendar to devote to what we think should be considerable consideration of the petition.
Do we agree to write to Scottish Enterprise and East Lothian Council to request that public consultation on the proposed development be extended and to take into account the points that committee members have raised?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions