Convener's Report
The heading "Convener's Report" is something of a catchall, but the main piece of business that it covers concerns our recent report on Stobhill hospital. It was generally well received and was a good piece of work by all committee members and particularly by Richard Simpson.
Members may recall that all conveners were asked to suggest business that could be debated in the chamber. Before we had finalised the Stobhill petition report, I had suggested that the Stracathro and Stobhill petitions would highlight issues of public consultation and accountability.
Unfortunately, I was not at last week's meeting of the conveners liaison group, at which my recommendation was accepted for the first subject committee debate. I do not use the word "unfortunately" because I do not want to be the first convener to lead off a subject committee debate; it is a good topic and reflects the good work done by all of you. I say "unfortunately" because a key component is missing from the motion that we have had to lodge, the Stobhill report, as the Executive has had no time to comment on the report or make a full response to it.
Instead, the Stracathro report, which highlighted some of the same issues, although not so starkly, will be mentioned. That may not lend the debate the same validity as it would have if both reports were to be debated. A motion has nevertheless been lodged for next week, and I shall attempt to strengthen it a little. It notes our recent and continuing work, which highlights the need for full public consultation and accountability of health boards and trusts. It also mentions principles of openness, accessibility and participation. The Stracathro petition is cited as an example of committee work. I shall attempt to amend the motion to note the concerns of the committee on those matters and I shall use the Stracathro petition as an illustration.
I believe that we will have a two-hour debate. I hope that during that time all members of the committee will have a chance to contribute to the debate. In my opening remarks, I shall concentrate on the wider issues that our two reports have highlighted. All of you will have the opportunity to refer to other current work and to anecdotal constituency issues that illustrate the principles of the reports.
Although the Stracathro petition was important to the committee and is obviously an important local issue, I do not want the debate on the future work of the Parliament, the committees and the Executive on wider issues to be dominated by one local issue. I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for all members to talk about what we consider to be the major issues. I am sure that the debate will be valuable.
Can I suggest that the committee gets together to discuss the speaking list before next week's debate?
The debate is on 16 March.
That is the day of the by-election. Is the debate in the morning?
It is the first committee day and we are the only committee that has published reports that we can discuss. We are the lucky people.
Do we take it that the Liberals are not expecting a victory in Ayr?
If they are relying on me being there to tip the scales, they might have a problem.
Some people might find it more difficult to attend the debate than others. Unfortunately, the number of committee days is limited and at least we have been lucky enough to get one of them.
Members visit many health organisations as part of their work, but I want to mention that last Friday, I visited Rachel House, the children's hospice in Kinross. It was an incredible experience and a great privilege. I want to put on record the wonderful welcome that I was given by the children and staff. The hospice has a continuing need for assistance from the Executive and others and I have made representations on that already. If committee members want to visit Rachel House at any time, they will be made very welcome.
Rachel House is in my constituency and I welcome your comments, convener. It is important that we discuss the funding of hospices in general. I am very pleased to say that the public response to appeals by Rachel House has been such that the hospice has a reserve fund of about £18 million. It is extraordinarily well supported by the public and I hope that that will continue. There are other hospices that may require further support, and there are plans to develop another child hospice in the west of Scotland.
I want to flag up the fact that Rachel House plans to open another hospice in the west of Scotland. It is thought that Scotland needs three children's hospices—one in the north of the country, too. Rachel House was opened with a large amount of public support, much of which was encouraged by the Daily Record.
Finally, a use for the Daily Record.
I want to put on record that I first suggested it to the paper. The editor was Endell Laird and the paper did a magnificent job. Daily Record readers built that hospice.
Those readers are helping again. When the first hospice was built, there was great public support and an input from the Scottish Office. If we believe that those services should be nationally provided, we should ensure that the Executive is aware of the situation and that Rachel House is on track to raise the funds for a second hospice.
Susan Deacon visited Rachel House fairly recently, as did Jackie Baillie. There is a lot of interest and the hospice is doing great work.
I have two procedural points. What is the procedure for opening, closing and speaking in the committee debate next week?
At the moment, I am opening the debate, but I am not sure who is closing it. I will take advice on that. Details will be circulated to committee members.
It is the first time that it has been done and we need to know the position under standing orders.
Exactly.
The second point is on agenda item 5. There were many good suggestions about amending the response to the Executive. Will the amended response be circulated to members?
Yes. That is normal practice. If we make substantive changes, we always circulate those to committee members.
Meeting closed at 11:45.