Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Official Report 237KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Item 4 is consideration of current petitions. There are three for consideration today, the first of which is PE1105, in the name of Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland hospice. Members have the clerk’s note and the submissions. I welcome Gil Paterson, who is here for the petition as a local MSP. Do you wish to make a short statement to the committee, Mr Paterson?

I would be grateful for that opportunity. Thank you for the invitation.

Although the genesis of the petition was in relation to St Margaret’s hospice, there are two general parts to the petition: funding for hospices rather than just for St Margaret’s hospice; and continuing care for frail elderly people throughout Scotland. I want the committee to take that point on board before I start.

The petition is a long-running one, which I am grateful for in many ways. The committee’s work on the petition has helped to focus attention on it, and I hope that it will bring about a conclusion that satisfies most people if not everybody.

At present, a contract is in the hands of St Margaret’s hospice on the petition’s two issues. There is also an offer from the health board for a meeting to go through the contract, but I am not at liberty to say what the issues are. This may sound odd, but I have not read it, so I do not know its entire contents. I believe that the meeting between the health board and the hospice on the issues in the contract is imminent.

If the committee will indulge me a little further, I repeat that it has been extremely helpful to have this as a live petition. The dialogue that I indicated will take place soon, so I feel that it would be premature at this stage to close the petition. I know that the committee has been patient; I think that this is the 13th time since 2007 that I have been to a meeting that has discussed it. However, I do not think that that has been a waste of the committee’s time. I ask the committee to be a bit more patient and to continue the petition, because I think that that would be helpful to the petitioners and to the health board. I hope that I will soon be able to take a different approach when I speak to the committee.

Thank you. I invite members to contribute to the discussion.

Gil, you said that a meeting with the health board is imminent but that you are not at liberty to say what the meeting is about. Can you give us a date for it?

I cannot give you a date, because one of the main players is not in the country at the moment. However, the meeting is imminent. As to the issues that are in the contract, they are exactly the items that the petitioners brought to the committee. I know that they are part of the contract.

I cannot give you an exact date for the meeting, but I am fairly certain that it will be soon.

I think that I have been to all 13 meetings that Gil Paterson has attended on the petition. It has been an interesting petition and I am glad that I have been able to follow it through. The petition has had a number of ups and downs regarding the dialogue with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on the initial decisions that it made and the lack of consultation, discussion and co-ordination with St Margaret’s hospice on what was being delivered in the area.

As time has shown, certain decisions that the health board wanted to implement have fallen through and we are back to a situation in which St Margaret’s hospice is providing most of the care to which Mr Paterson referred. I support his suggestion that we keep the petition open slightly longer, for several reasons, one of which is the on-going discussions between the hospice and the health board.

In addition, there are the on-going discussions between the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy and hospice providers throughout Scotland. One of the issues that have come through from the petition is the disparity between different health boards’ funding for the hospice sector in their area. I would like us to get a report back from the cabinet secretary on her discussions and on whether there is any movement on funding provision for hospices throughout Scotland such that we will see an end to the apparent disparity between health boards. I suggest that we ask the cabinet secretary to give us a report on the discussions and on other issues that may arise for hospice provision in the long term, but particularly for St Margaret’s hospice.

For information, I understand that the Scottish Government confirmed that revised guidance is due to be published at the end of March.

We have heard Gil Paterson’s strong plea for us to continue our consideration of the petition, given the timescale that he talked about. The issue is important, but this is actually the 14th time that we have had the petition on our agenda—I do not say that in an unsympathetic way, but there comes a stage at which we need to consider the next steps.

I did not realise that there have been 13 discussions on the petition—that is an unfortunate number. During my short time as a member of the committee, I have learned that petitions can go on and on unless a decision is made. Gil Paterson asked members to continue their consideration. I know that you cannot give a specific date for the meeting that you mentioned, but are we talking about weeks or months?

I am pretty certain that it is weeks rather than months.

This is actually the 15th time that the petition has been considered in the committee, which demonstrates the importance of the situation. We must acknowledge that the hospice serves not just Clydebank but the west of Scotland. It provides an excellent service and does a good job. If we are talking about weeks, I support John Wilson’s suggestion that we keep the petition open until we have more information.

I agree. Given what the clerk has told us about when the Government will report, we should certainly keep the petition open until the end of March.

Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

We will continue consideration of the petition. We are conscious of the timescale. I thank Gil Paterson for coming along to make the case.

I thank the committee, again.

---

NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)

PE1285, which was brought by Caroline Mockford, is on free calls to NHS 24 from mobile phones. Members have the note by the clerks and the submissions. I invite comments.

I found the petition interesting, given the cost of phoning 0845 numbers from mobile phones. I note that the Government is considering adopting the 111 number. I am happy to keep the petition open while we wait for an update from the Government on that. I am not sure that adoption of 111 would answer all the questions in the petition, but it would be a start.

I support the suggestion that we keep the petition open, but we should ask the Government when it intends to make a decision on use of the 111 number, because we do not want to keep the petition open indefinitely.

I support that. Until recently, I was not aware how many people call NHS 24 from mobile phones, which is pretty expensive. People phone when there is a serious matter that does not merit a 999 call. I hope that consideration of the 111 number will be concluded soon, so that we can merge consideration of the petition with that issue or take another path. I am all in favour of keeping the petition open for the time being.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and await an update from the Scottish Government on the adoption of the 111 number?

Members indicated agreement.

---

In Care Survivors Service Scotland (PE1397)

PE1397, which was brought by Mary Roy, is on future support for and funding of In Care Survivors Service Scotland. Members have the note by the clerk and the submissions.

Given the responses that we have had from the Scottish Government on the issue, I propose that we close the petition. The Scottish Government has given a commitment to continue ICSSS for the period of the spending review—depending on decisions in the Parliament on the next budget, of course. Discussions are going on about how the Government takes forward issues that emerged from the time to be heard forum. We can close the petition, bearing in mind that if things do not come to fruition, the petitioner has the right to come back to us with another petition on the issue, if she wants to do so.

If there are no more comments, do members agree to close the petition, under rule 15.7, in the context of what John Wilson said and the points that are set out in paragraph 16(4) of the clerk’s options paper?

Members indicated agreement.

15:11 Meeting continued in private until 15:29.