St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of six current petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 3, and written submissions. Gil Paterson MSP, who has a long-standing interest in the petition, is in attendance. I invite him to give a brief summary of where we are with this interesting but long-standing petition.
Thank you. It is always a pleasure to come to the committee and to be in the public gallery to hear some of the interesting petitions that come before the committee. I have always admired the committee. I am not just sooking up, but I think that it is the best committee in the Parliament for access for the public, which is really good.
I do not have terribly much to say on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice petition. However, I can sum up the current position, which is that talks are being held about talks. The ground rules are being set. I think that it is being done very amicably. I hope that we are moving towards a conclusion and a point where all parties will be agreeable and can take something from the outcome.
Other than that, I have nothing to say, but I am happy to answer any questions.
I thank Gil Paterson for coming along and for his kind comments about the committee. As I understand it, independent arbitration is currently being set up to look at the situation that the petition addresses. It is an important and long-standing petition. I think that the only issue to point out to members is that the petition first appeared before the committee in December 2007. I am keen that we deal with as many petitions as we can but, because so many new petitions are coming aboard, there is an issue about leaving space for that.
I have a question for Gil Paterson. As the convener said, this is a long-standing petition. I do not know why these things take so long. Have there been any consequences as a result of it taking aeons to arrive at a decision?
The biggest consequence is where there have been funding gaps, because there is obviously an outcome in that regard. In effect, we are talking about the allocation of resources on the basis of differentials between similar institutions or within the same institution. It is frustrating that it is taking so long to get to a resolution and a good end point. However, the people who have been involved in the process are patient and they have an expectation that at the end of the journey we will have a resolution that will satisfy everyone. To be frank, I expect that to happen.
That is good and I am sure that it will happen. However, when I look at such issues, I think that, at the end of the day, it will probably cost us a lot more than if we had come to an agreement earlier on. In that case, we would have achieved outcomes that everyone on both sides desired. For the life of me, I just do not understand why some of these things take the period of time that they do.
Perhaps Mr Paterson can confirm that the potential consequence at one stage was that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board’s preferred route would have rendered the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice unviable, which could have had enormous consequences for the many people who are nursed through end-of-life care there. I hope that such people will now continue to be nursed. The health board’s preferred option eventually collapsed but, as a result of the suspicion that arose out of that, direct involvement by a cabinet secretary was required to instruct both parties to liaise and negotiate to reach an amicable solution. I wonder whether Mr Paterson agrees that the authority of this committee should stand behind the petition until we see the ink physically dry on an agreement that is acceptable to both parties in relation to the resolution of the dispute.
Yes, I concur with everything that you have said. I prefer to dwell on success. I think that there was almost divine intervention with regard to the collapse of the Blawarthill project. If that project had gone ahead, the continuing care beds at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice would have been shifted to a hospital at Blawarthill. I hate to think what would have happened to the hospice in that case. Thankfully, however, that possibility was averted. We have now secured the continuation of what the hospice does extremely well. The next stage is to look at the funding that comes to the hospice from the health board for the other part of the contract and the work that it does on behalf of the health board for the community.
As I said, I am thankful that we achieved the success that we did. I dare say that it was almost an accident, but nevertheless it was good. I feel positive because that happened. We will now move on to try to secure the last bit. I am an optimist about that, because that is my nature. Frankly, I can see no benefit for anyone in there not being a resolution. I think that we can get a conclusion whereby both parties are satisfied and feel that they are in a reasonable place.
I know that the wider campaigning organisations that support the petition have very much appreciated the contribution that the Public Petitions Committee has made, although I hesitate to suggest that they have placed us in the column marked “divine intervention”. However, convener, I hope that, notwithstanding your strictures on the petition, you will allow it to continue until the ink is dry on the agreement. It has been a long time coming and has proven in the past to be a false expectation, so I think that we would want to see it before we surrender our authority on the petition.
11:30
I am always happy to give the member an early Christmas present.
It is not divine intervention, but I am not sure whether I am amused or upset to receive a letter from the Scottish Government saying:
“Both parties also expressed their wish to maintain momentum on this issue”.
I will bring in Jim Eadie. I apologise to him for delaying.
I declare an interest, which is that my mother was cared for, and died, in St Margaret’s hospice, so I can testify to the excellent end-of-life care that is provided at the facility. There is huge public confidence in the clinicians and nurses who provide it and, to echo the point that Chic Brodie made earlier, huge frustration and bewilderment at the uncertainty that has surrounded the continuing provision of that excellent facility in Clydebank. I pay tribute to Gil Paterson, who has been assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituency and constituents.
The petition should absolutely stay open until the matter is finally resolved.
I am sure that all the committee will endorse your comments about Mr Paterson.
I think that I have been with the petition since 2007. I was a substitute member on the committee when the petition first came before it and I think that I have sat on every committee meeting at which it has been considered since then.
Lessons must be learned in relation to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board’s role and its failure to engage in any meaningful way with the hospice in the early days of the petition. That should have happened but, as Jackson Carlaw said, the health board set out a different approach with Blawarthill hospital as the alternative care provider. That option eventually fell through, despite warnings that it could fall through and that there was already an excellent facility providing such care within the area that could provide it without additional cost to the health board.
Both sides have agreed to have talks about talks—I think that was the phrase that was used—but I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government and ask whether there is any indication of the date by which it expects the talks to be concluded. We are now six years on from the petition originally being presented and I do not want Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to have the opportunity to drag out further any discussion with the hospice on coming to an agreed settlement.
Many of the times that we have discussed the petition at the committee, there has been great concern and, as Jim Eadie said, frustration that the health board would not sit down and talk. When it agreed to talk, it dragged the talks on and on in the hope that the hospice would go away. The hospice has been tenacious in its struggle and should be applauded for the work that it has done.
I would like to seek from the Scottish Government and, particularly, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board assurances that there is an end date for the discussions at which we can bring the matter back to the committee and, we hope, get a conclusion that satisfies the petitioners and the many people who benefit from the services that the hospice provides.
Do members agree to John Wilson’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Members agree that we will continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government. We hope that we will get a conclusion in the new year when the ink has dried on the agreement, to use Jackson Carlaw’s term.
I thank Gil Paterson for coming along. We appreciate his time.
In the letter to the cabinet secretary, it would be incumbent on us to acknowledge his contribution to date, which has been to intervene directly to ensure that an independent intermediary was appointed. He has taken a significant step that had been called for for quite some time prior to his intervening to do it. We should ally that point to the one on the timetable.
Agreed. Thank you for that, and thank you, Gil.
Thank you—it is much appreciated.
Access to Insulin Pump Therapy (PE1404)
Our second current petition is PE1404, by Stephen Fyfe, on behalf of Diabetes UK, on access to insulin pump therapy. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
You will be aware that I have a particular interest in this issue, as I am co-convener of the cross-party group on diabetes, and I think that we took some evidence on the matter at our Stornoway Parliament day.
I have made it clear that I think that the targets that we got from the Scottish Government for insulin pumps are good. However, Diabetes UK Scotland and I had concerns about the fact that individual health boards were not necessarily meeting the targets. That was a source of frustration. From the answers that I have read to recent parliamentary questions, I think that we are certainly getting on track now. Diabetes UK Scotland is certainly happy with the progress that has been made.
In light of all of that, my recommendation is that we have reached a stage at which we can close the petition, under rule 15.7, unless members have a different idea.
I feel relatively comfortable with that. However, reading the Scottish Government’s letter raises some concerns. It answers our first question, about slippage, and it gives reasons why the Government is confident that the targets and deadlines that have been set will be met. However, in answers to various other questions, it says,
“This enables us to promptly identify when boards are not meeting agreed trajectories”,
and
“It is important to note that different Boards have started from different baselines”.
It also says that there are no penalties. Basically, it is saying, “We have set up the improvement team and we have set the targets, but it might not meet them.” That appears to be planning for failure. That is unacceptable. In closing the petition, we should note that. Either we are setting up teams to ensure that the targets are met, or we are setting up teams with the expectation that certain things might not happen.
So, is the point that you are making—
Either we have a plan for success or we have a plan that we might have success. Having had the meetings that we have had, and the discussions with the Government that we have had, we should have a plan for success. However, this letter does not fill me full to the brim with confidence.
There is a suggestion that we should close the petition, but there are some outstanding issues that Chic Brodie feels we should raise.
I am sure that we can monitor the situation on an individual basis. I was just making a general point, and I think that we should close the petition. Again, I feel that we are either taking aeons to complete petitions or leaving them open ended, neither of which is acceptable.
I think that there is a wider issue about Government laying down targets and health boards failing to meet them.
The penalties should be clear.
There are financial penalties for local government when it misses targets. Are you suggesting that there should be financial penalties for health boards?
That is not for me to say. I know what penalties I would apply, but I am sure that they are not prescribed.
How do you follow up that comment?
Like Chic Brodie, I have concerns about the way in which the letter concludes, which is that the six-monthly and annual reviews should pick up any issues. I represent an area that is covered by NHS Lanarkshire, which has a poor record on the delivery of insulin pumps. I am not talking about penalties; I am talking about the action that the Government is going to take between the six-monthly review and the annual review to ensure that boards are meeting their targets. Financial penalties on health boards penalise those bodies but do not bring any real benefit to the patients. Certainly, there are many well-paid officials in health boards, so perhaps it is time for us to start looking at financial performance penalties for those individuals if they are not delivering on agreed targets that have been set in place.
I suggest that we close the petition but write to the Scottish Government expressing our concern. No doubt this issue will continue to be monitored locally as well as nationally. We would expect the Government to take immediate, appropriate action to get the targets back on track if they seem to be slipping in any health board.
Members are agreed to close the petition but to note some concerns about the performance of health boards. There is also a wider issue that has come up in other petitions about the postcode lottery, when one health board delivers and another does not.
I thank Diabetes UK Scotland for its work on the issue of meeting targets on access to insulin pump therapy.
Chronic Pain Services (PE1460)
The third current petition is PE1460, by Susan Archibald, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on chronic pain, on the improvement of services and resources to tackle chronic pain. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I think that we all had an email from Susan Archibald saying that she had another engagement today and was unable to attend the meeting. I note that the Scottish Government has placed her on the national chronic pain steering group. I think that we should congratulate Susan Archibald on the work that she has done.
I do not think that anything would be lost if we held the petition open for one more meeting, until we get the outcome of the consultation and find out the Government’s preferred route forward. That would give the committee one last chance, perhaps, to liaise with the petitioner on what she thinks of the conclusion of that. We could close the petition at that point.
Is that agreeable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
Wind Turbine Applications (Neighbour Notification Distances) (PE1469)
The fourth current petition is PE1469, by Aileen Jackson, on neighbour notification distances in relation to wind turbine planning applications. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. We received a late update from the Scottish Government, which has been circulated to members.
There is a recommendation from the clerks to consider referring the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee as part of its forthcoming work on national planning framework 3 and the review of the Scottish planning policy. It would seem sensible to put the petition to the committee that will be dealing with those areas. As always, I am open to counsel and opinions from members.
I was slightly surprised by the Scottish Government letter because I thought that it was being more proactive in addressing some of the issues arising from the petition than perhaps had been indicated at an earlier stage. I took some encouragement from that letter.
Given the national position on the subsidy of onshore wind farms and the potential that that might create for an acceleration of applications, if the Government is minded to look at these matters, it is important that it does not do so on an extended timescale. The Scottish Government letter did not entirely convey the timescale that the Government intended to have underpinning it. Can we write to the Government to get some further confirmation of that en route to referring the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee?
Yes, we can do that—is that agreeable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
It is worth noting that the Scottish Government stated in its 20 September letter that its conclusions would be with the committee
“by the end of November.”
I rest my case, as outlined in my previous comments.
Gender-neutral Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (PE1477)
The fifth current petition is PE1477, by Jamie Rae, on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation, on a gender-neutral human papillomavirus vaccination. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I remind members that there are a number of options. One option is to write to the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation on its plans to reconsider extension of the HPV vaccination programme, because the Scottish Government takes its advice on the introduction of vaccines from the JCVI.
Are members agreeable to that course of action?
11:45
I am. I am slightly surprised by the progress of the petition given the number of different parties writing to us who seem to be challenging the Government’s view and the advice that it has received. We should draw that to the Government’s attention, because it is not insignificant in the balance that must be struck in what is a difficult judgment for the Government to make. The advice is not lightly made and some of it has been quite well founded and grounded, so I am in a different place to where I was when I first read the petition.
I agree that we should draw the Government’s attention to those views, particularly those in the University of Cambridge’s submission, because the evidence provided on the vaccination regime is compelling. Accordingly, the Government should be asked to respond.
Do members agree to draw the Government’s attention to some of the information that we have received and that we also seek written information from the JCVI?
Members indicated agreement.
Primary 1 Class Sizes and Sibling Placing Requests (PE1486)
The sixth and final petition is PE1486, in the name of Julie Wales. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. What are members’ views?
We are at a point—I am not sure whether I did not regard this as inevitable—at which we should consider closing the petition in view of the information that we have received and the Government’s review of class sizes in 2014.
Although I agree with Jackson Carlaw that we have reached a place that we knew we would come to, the difficulty is that, even with the class size review in 2014, the placement requests issue will not be resolved, as we have discussed previously in the committee. Family members have to understand that placement requests are decided by local authorities and that they have appeals processes. We would not want to encourage anyone who is making a request to have siblings placed along with their older brothers or sisters in the same school to think that the Government review on class sizes will hold out any hope for them. Placement requests are, in many respects, decided by the capacity of the school or otherwise to deal with those requests. Therefore, we should close the petition.
I hope that the petitioner will read the Official Report and see from our comments that we are not holding out hope that the class size review will result in siblings being placed in the particular schools that families wish them to be placed in.
As there are no further contributions, do members agree to close the petition under rule 15.7?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 11:48.Previous
New Petitions