St Margaret of Scotland Hospice
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7506, in the name of Des McNulty, on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
17:10
This is the third members’ business debate that I have had on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice; the issue has been going on for more than three years.
I remember bringing a group from the hospice—many of the same people are in the public gallery tonight—to a debate in December 2008. We sang carols outside the chamber and had Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien in attendance. The issue then is the issue now: Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board decided, without consulting the hospice, to remove the funding for the continuing care beds there.
The health board then sought to force the hospice to alter its provision—which is extraordinarily well regarded in my constituency and, I believe, throughout the west of Scotland—from continuing care and palliative care, which work very closely together, to some other kind of use, such as nursing care or mental health care, that St Margaret’s felt was entirely inappropriate, particularly in the absence of consultation. The justification was a decision, which the health board had made previously, to rationalise continuing care beds in the north of Glasgow. It decided that it needed 180 continuing care beds. It also decided that the 30 beds at St Margaret’s hospice were surplus to requirements and that 60 beds would be provided at the nearby Blawarthill hospital. St Margaret’s has nothing against continuing care beds being provided at Blawarthill hospital, but it has everything against changes being imposed on an outstanding facility.
It is not only St Margaret’s staff who say that the hospice is outstanding. I speak to ordinary people in and beyond my constituency, and everybody—without exception—who has had a friend or relative in the hospice or knows people who have had to use its facilities says that it is a centre of excellence in palliative and continuing care. They did not understand why people who were trying to get into a facility that they say is valuable—people are trying to get into St Margaret’s all the time—were being denied the opportunity or why the hospice was being asked to change, without any rhyme or reason.
Ministers have had an opportunity since the 2008 debate—in fact, since before then, because I was in touch with them before I brought the issue to the Parliament—to get some common sense into the situation. I believed then and believe now that there is more than enough need for continuing care to continue at St Margaret’s—there are more than enough patients who need the kind of care it provides and who should be accommodated there—but I ended up against a brick wall: Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. It simply would not listen. Its argument was, “We have decided. That is it and you have to deal with the consequences.”
The consequences for St Margaret’s were potentially severe. Its skilled staff, who have been built up over a period of time and are dedicated to providing excellent care, would have been reduced in a way that was inappropriate not only for the continuing care provision but for the hospice provision. The integration of the care that St Margaret’s hospice was able to provide would also have been affected. The care that is needed by somebody who is weeks away from death is not fundamentally different from that needed by somebody who is a few months away from death, which is what many continuing care patients are. The kinds of nursing support that those two groups need are not miles apart.
What existed at St Margaret’s was unique not only in respect of the support it gave patients, but in respect of the support it gave families. Thankfully, that support still exists there, but we ran up against a brick wall—the health board had gone into partnership to build up the facility at Blawarthill and it simply was not able to discuss any alternative arrangement that would allow St Margaret’s to continue.
Will the member give way?
No. Let me continue, if I may.
Yesterday, the health board put out a press statement that said—surprise, surprise—that Southern Cross Healthcare, which was one of the partners at Blawarthill, is no longer able to provide the service that it had contracted to provide, and the contractor has indicated that the continuing care part of the package can no longer go ahead. I put it to ministers that there is now an opportunity to say to St Margaret’s, “Circumstances have changed and our policies have changed. There’s a commonsense solution here, which is that instead of St Margaret’s continuing care stopping in 2012, as is currently scheduled, it can be given a contract and have a process of negotiation and proper discussion with the health board, and we can get an outcome.” That is what thousands of people in my area and in areas around Clydebank want. That is not asking for more money or for something impossible. Rather, we are asking for the continuation of something that exists.
I say to the minister that there are questions that need to be asked about the health board. Why has it taken the collapse of the deal for the health board to move in any shape or form? In fact, it has not moved. That is the reality. It has not said that Blawarthill has gone so it will put the continuing care beds in St Margaret’s; it has said that it will conduct a review and that it will let us know what the results are at the end of the summer. The staff and patients and everybody concerned with St Margaret’s have had three years of uncertainty. That is more than enough.
Ministers could have intervened at any point in the past three years and said that they were concerned about the way in which things were developing. People I know have knocked on Nicola Sturgeon’s door and the doors of other Scottish National Party members, as they have knocked on mine, and said, “This makes no sense. There’s a sensible solution here. Can we not move towards a sensible solution?” St Margaret’s is the outstanding facility for continuing and palliative care in my part of Scotland. Now is the time for a sensible solution and for ministers and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to say to St Margaret’s, “Yes, you can continue. Yes, we will agree that these beds can continue; we now recognise that we were wrong to put you under pressure, to give you all that anxiety and to leave you in a situation of insecurity over the past three to four years. We are going to put that right.” I hope that the minister will say that today.
It occurs to me that the member already has a team on his side. Campbell Christie’s commission exists to examine the sort of process that the member has outlined. The member is right, and he should use Campbell Christie, who is on his side.
I have the best will in the world towards Campbell Christie, but we are talking about an absolutely open-and-shut case. We do not need to get into the debate about public sector reform. There is an answer to a question that is begging to be answered, and I hope that the minister can answer it tonight.
17:19
When a vital issue such as the future and wellbeing of an institution such as the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice has been rightly debated many times, it is difficult to find something new to say about it or a spark that might keep the audience and members further informed. Over the past week, I have reviewed the contributions on the issue that colleagues and I have made in previous debates and in many appearances in front of the Public Petitions Committee.
In truth, I found nothing new on the merits of the case to bring to the chamber, then—bingo—we got the statement from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board on the Blawarthill development, part of which I will read for the benefit of members who have not seen it. It says:
“NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has been advised by the private contractor responsible for the development of the Blawarthill site that they are no longer in partnership with Southern Cross, the company contracted with Glasgow City Council to run the nursing home which was to be built on the site.
The contractor therefore cannot fulfil the contract to deliver the development proposal that would have seen 60 nursing home beds and 60 NHS continuing care beds—along with social housing provision—built at Blawarthill Hospital.
The Health Board meeting on 15th February will receive a recommendation that this contractual situation means that the proposals for the site developed over a period of many years with strong support from the local community, Glasgow City Council, Yoker Housing Association and the NHS Board cannot now be delivered as planned.
We are committed to finding an alternative approach to ensure that the planned social housing with Yoker Housing Association goes ahead and we have also offered to negotiate with Glasgow City Council to accommodate the 120-bed care home they have committed to develop in West Glasgow on the Blawarthill site.
The Health Board will now consider the options for continuing care beds in the West of Glasgow and this review should be concluded by late summer.”
Let me help the health board by telling it about the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, which will provide it with a ready-made solution. I will pose a number of pertinent questions and answers.
Are the hospice buildings of an adequate standard? They are either new or newly refurbished to a very high standard, with integral high-quality resources for patients, their families and members of staff.
Does the service that is provided meet the requirements of the board? The hospice has sailed through every audit that has ever been carried out, and the plaudits that it has been given by patients and their families are of the highest order, so the answer is, of course, that St Margaret’s is as good as anywhere else, if not better.
Are the costs of the hospice out of kilter with the provision? No questions or concerns about the costs relative to the services that are provided have ever arisen.
Is the hospice’s location a factor from the point of view of accessibility? Is it outwith the catchment area, which would adversely affect its usefulness to the board? The hospice is located in the council ward directly next to the intended location of the establishment that is favoured by the health board. The distance between them is less than the distance that a child must walk to qualify for a free bus service.
I do not have time to go through all the reasons why St Margaret’s comes up to the spec that is required by the board. It deserves the Parliament’s full support to retain the continuing care beds—not for the sake of it, but because it has carried out the job with distinction and continues to offer a service that is second to none.
We still have time—there is still an opportunity to do the right thing. I have no hesitation whatever in thanking Des McNulty for yet again bringing the issue to the Parliament for debate. I declare without reservation that I fully support the motion.
17:24
I apologise in advance because I have a meeting to attend and so need to leave imminently.
I commend Des McNulty for his persistence and tenacity, and for his determination to ensure that the issue is resolved successfully. I have a long-standing awareness and knowledge of the affection in which St Margaret of Scotland Hospice is held in the local area. As someone who grew up in the grounds of Erskine hospital, it was one of the highlights of my summer to go across on the Erskine ferry to the annual fundraising day in Clydebank to participate in the activities there. I know what a significant contribution the hospice makes to the local community.
Des McNulty highlighted two issues in the wider debate that we need to have. We need to consider, first, the role and contribution of hospices and, secondly, the services that we provide for older people in our hospitals. On the first issue, I am acutely aware of the important contribution that hospices make. In Renfrewshire, we are privileged to have two of the most outstanding hospices in the country—Accord Hospice and St Vincent’s Hospice. I know from talking to staff and people who have friends and relatives in the hospices how much people value the contribution that hospices make. Reflection on and a review by the Government and the Parliament of the support that is given to hospices—in specific and general terms—are long overdue, because hospices make an immense contribution and often have to rely on tight budgets. What they can do with a fraction of the total NHS budget to transform the lives of people in our communities is considerable.
The second issue relates not just to Des McNulty’s specific point about care in the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice but to a more general point about the NHS. Although I admire, and will defend to my last breath, the contribution that the health service in Scotland makes to the wellbeing of our citizens, and although I know from my family’s experience how well the NHS does when there is an emergency or an acute issue that needs to be addressed, I think that we should be big enough to reflect on what we do for older people. Des McNulty highlighted the quality of care that is given to older people in a facility where there is a caring, loving and highly professional ethos.
Both my elderly parents—God rest them—had to be hospitalised for lengthy periods. I witnessed dedication from staff, the like of which I could never hope to match, but I also witnessed examples of dubious care, in which elderly people were left unfed or slumped in bed without being picked up, and their quality of life left a lot to be desired. Indeed, we had to remove my father from hospital before we could see an improvement in the quality of his life. Hospitals are not really geared to the long-term wellbeing of elderly people who need treatment and care.
That is why facilities such as St Margaret’s are so important. They make a difference and provide something that the NHS is failing to provide. If we allow a facility such as St Margaret’s to disappear, not only will the people who are currently supported and served by the hospice be affected, but society as a whole will be the loser, because St Margaret’s is a model for what can be delivered throughout Scotland. I wish Des McNulty and the campaigners every success. If they win, they will have done us all a service.
17:28
We began today’s business with a debate on health visitors. The Conservatives brought that debate back to Parliament and make no apology for doing so in the cycle of parliamentary business. Des McNulty, too, need make no apology for bringing back to Parliament a debate on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, because it is unfinished business. It is a matter on which most, if not all, members have agreed, but which remains unresolved as this session of Parliament draws to a close.
I have no particular comment to make and cannot add anything new to the debate, so I intend to be brief. Ross Finnie, Gil Paterson and, in particular, Des McNulty have spoken in all the debates on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice during this session of Parliament and are equally committed to ensuring that the matter is resolved. I have said repeatedly that I regard it as my responsibility as a regional member of the Parliament to give every assistance to the campaign in defence of the hospice, which Des McNulty has admirably led.
Like other members, I am able to give personal testimony, having had relatives who were lovingly looked after in their final days by staff at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, so I know what an outstanding job they do. I am also happy to pay tribute to the commitment of both Sister Rita, who is one of the most formidable women I have met—I will not say that she is scary, as that is probably an oxymoron in the context—and to Leo Martin, who has taken over responsibility. They have given admirable, obvious, sustained and committed leadership to the campaign that has been mounted on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice.
Nevertheless, we have had to endure endless prevarication by the health board over what needs to be done. That has ended in a ludicrous stand-off, which I previously invited the cabinet secretary to try to break by appointing a special representative to broker an arrangement and draw the matter to a conclusion. However, that has just not happened. With only weeks of the session of Parliament left, we are still more or less where we were. Eighteen months ago, we were told that the hospice could carry on until 2012. I said then that, surely, we do not have to wait until the 11th hour in 2012 to find a resolution. Let us use the time that we have now to reach an agreement sooner rather than later.
Interestingly, Des McNulty says that there is a commonsense solution. The most formidable woman I have come across in politics once said to me, “The problem with common sense, Jackson, is that it actually isn’t very common.” In the context of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, I am afraid that that is very much the case.
We now have the announcement about Blawarthill hospital. If I were the cabinet secretary, I would be pretty annoyed. The cabinet secretary has given every latitude that she could give to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. She has given it every encouragement and impetus to try to get a discussion going. She has been quite sympathetic to the arguments that it has made, albeit that she has always said that she wants a solution.
What do we now have from the health board? The suggestion of a review. What can that review do? We know that the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice is ready, willing and able to provide the on-going care that it has always provided. Suppose that we were to consider the options of the review at the end of the summer. Are we seriously to suppose that one of them would be that, between the end of the summer and spring next year, the health board could identify another site, find architects, secure planning and build another facility—all to frustrate St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and prevent its carrying on? Is the health board so perverse that it would open up portakabins somewhere and put people in them to stop the facility at the hospice?
I am worried about the member’s direction of travel. I would not put that past the health board.
Mr Carlaw, watch your time, please.
I will, Deputy Presiding Officer.
We are at the point at which the perverse seems to be prevailing. I say to the minister that, surely, we do not need to wait for the new Parliament to assemble to consider the outcome of a review sometime later on this year. We have three weeks or so of business left. Is it not time for the cabinet secretary and the minister to make the Government’s position completely clear and to say to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that enough is enough and that we should resolve the matter now, with an urgent and conclusive agreement with the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice?
17:33
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing a debate on St Margaret’s for the third time. I am only sorry that he has had to do so. It is with great sadness that we have found it necessary to continue the debate, but continue it we will.
I will not rehearse what has been said about the excellent facilities and staff at the hospice. Anyone who is listening to the debate should be in no doubt that I need no persuading about the value of the staff, the excellence of those who run the hospice and the excellence of its buildings, its location and its cost base. I do not need to be persuaded about those things, and they are not the matter at issue tonight.
This sad, sorry exercise has driven the perfectly reasonable people who run the hospice to a state in which they feel threatened—let us not kid ourselves about that. The health board, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, used sweet language in saying that it did not intend to close down the hospice and that it intended to provide financial support—but on its own terms, with the hospice doing what it was told and the health board not being open to negotiation. That stand-off has led to a point where the obduracy of the health board is matched by the quite understandably defensive position of the board of the hospice.
I want to pick up on the interesting points that Gil Paterson made about the criteria that might be applied. A normal, rational person would follow his analysis. The buildings are excellent. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has known that all along, but has never acknowledged it. The staff are outstanding and—funnily enough—are trained in continuing and palliative care. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has known that all along, too, but it does not want them to perform the tasks for which they are trained; it wants them to perform different tasks. The board has also known all along the cost basis, because that has been shared with it. The location might be in Clydebank but, as Gil Paterson will remember, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde told us that certain functions could not possibly be performed there because Clydebank is remote from Glasgow and the functions could not be managed from there. That is what the board said. It has known that all along.
The minister might be beginning to form the impression that that is an irrational argument. If she is, she is following me precisely. That is why we desperately need the minister to take some action. I wholly understand the position that the cabinet secretary has taken up to this point, which is that it is not her purpose to micromanage the work of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—and I would not wish it to be. However, as Jackson Carlaw has just eloquently put it, there comes a point at which a situation is totally irreparable and when common sense and good sense must prevail. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde might persist in the notion that it is actively engaging with the hospice, but we must raise serious questions about that. The health board has been instructed by the cabinet secretary to enter into those negotiations, but nothing has happened. There has been no movement and the future of the hospice remains uncertain.
The situation is wholly unsatisfactory, and I have no confidence that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will resolve it of its own volition; it needs some kind of intervention. We hope that, tonight, the minister will recognise that perhaps—only perhaps, because we must be cautious—the Blawarthill situation offers the minister an opportunity to suggest a way in which we can go forward. I accept that there are other issues about those who are employed at the Blawarthill site and that there are other contractual obligations in that regard. Nevertheless, the Blawarthill situation offers an opportunity with regard to the amount of continuing and palliative care beds that are required in the health board’s area. They are adequately provided in many circumstances by the hospice, and it should be supported. However, that will not happen unless someone else intervenes.
17:38
Like others, I pay tribute to my colleague, Des McNulty, for securing this debate on St Margaret’s hospice and for his persistence in making the case strongly. I recognise the consensus that exists on this matter in the chamber. Gil Paterson, Jackson Carlaw and Ross Finnie are not new to this debate and have supported the case for the continuing care beds at the hospice.
Timing is everything in politics, and we meet today with the knowledge that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s plans for continuing care beds at Blawarthill are now in disarray. I do not know whether to be astonished or disappointed to note that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde appears to be determined to pursue continuing care beds at that site.
Although I recognise that what has happened is of concern, it provides an opportunity for ministers and the health board to consider matters afresh. In that regard, I want to return to the debate that we had in March last year. At that time, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing urged NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to engage with St Margaret’s, which was welcome. Even at the most recent annual review of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in November last year, there was the promise of more meetings and a resolution.
What has happened in the intervening period since November? How many meetings has Andrew Robertson, the chair of the health board, had with Professor Leo Martin, from St Margaret’s? How many meetings has Robert Calderwood, the chief executive of the health board, had with Professor Martin or, indeed, Sister Rita Dawson? Given that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has clearly signalled the importance of finding a solution, we would expect a flurry of activity. At the very least, we would expect there to have been a few meetings, but my understanding is that there has been none. Frankly, I find it incredible that there has not been one meeting. Andrew Robertson stated in a recent e-mail that he meets Professor Martin regularly, but the last meeting was in October 2010. That is not regular; it is ages ago, and it predates the health board’s annual review.
The time for playing games is long past. St Margaret’s is an excellent facility that is second to none. It has rightly been praised by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and by all members in the chamber. The hospice care is exceptional, as is the continuing care provision. I know people who have been cared for at St Margaret’s, people from my community who volunteer there and people throughout the west of Scotland who hold it in the highest regard. It is the support of ordinary people from all walks of life that gives us all a sense of how much St Margaret’s is valued and loved, and the petition with well over 100,000 signatures demonstrates that.
Des McNulty said that this is the third such debate. The uncertainty over the future of continuing care beds is now long-standing and it continues still. Gil Paterson rightly quoted the health board’s statement about the review of care beds concluding in late summer, but members should read on, because later in the statement the chief executive states:
“I am optimistic that we can still secure a major care home and social housing development at Blawarthill”.
Does that mean that the decision of the review is already determined? Does west Glasgow include St Margaret’s or is it too far away in West Dunbartonshire? Is the review simply about the number of beds that will be at Blawarthill? We will clearly be waiting some time for answers, because the health board’s lack of transparency has already been well documented. Its dealings with even its non-executive board members who sought to question the basis of its decision making is frankly the stuff of legend.
I will support—I am sure that this is the case for every member in the chamber—any measure that makes progress for St Margaret’s and secures funding of the continuing care beds, wherever the suggestion comes from. For my part, I am pleased to confirm the Scottish Labour Party’s support for St Margaret’s. We have given an unequivocal commitment to funding the continuing care beds and we will ensure funding for the future for many years to come.
I echo Jackson Carlaw, because his speech was excellent. He said, “enough is enough”. There is a window of opportunity. We should not wait until the end of the summer. It is time to take action; the time, minister, is now. I hope that the minister can offer certainty to St Margaret’s in her closing speech.
17:43
I thank Des McNulty for once again bringing this important issue before Parliament. I begin by joining members who have paid tribute to the unstinting effort and commitment of all those who give so much of their time and energy to help Scotland’s magnificent hospices to continue to offer the highest quality of care to people in great need.
As has been said, this is the second members’ business debate on St Margaret’s in under a year. I want it to be clear that we fully recognise the strength of local feeling about securing the future of the hospice. Members throughout the chamber have demonstrated the strength of cross-party support for the campaign. To date, it has remained a non-political campaign, and I urge all members to continue to make it so, because that is its strength.
I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments and history in relation to St Margaret’s, not least because everybody in the chamber knows them well. I want to use the time to look forward. As members will know, St Margaret’s currently provides two discrete areas of care: the 30 continuing care beds, and palliative and end-of-life care provision. Both areas of care currently attract funding under separate arrangements from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I put on record that no one has ever questioned the excellent quality of care that is offered by St Margaret’s.
Nonetheless, as we have debated here before, the role of a health board is always to ensure that it provides health care services that best meet the needs of local people, which will sometimes require a review of services. A succession of local reviews identified an on-going need for 60 continuing care beds in the west of Glasgow, and the board gave notice at that time that it no longer required the beds that are provided by St Margaret’s.
It is correct that the board wished to provide continuing care from Blawarthill hospital, but I clarify that that did not represent a simple transfer of beds from one location to another. It was the board’s intention to locate continuing care beds within the existing 60-bed capacity at Blawarthill, and it was that decision that resulted in the 30 beds at St Margaret’s being under question.
Members will be aware that there have been significant recent developments in relation to the Blawarthill project. The developer of the site, which would have provided sheltered housing, mainstream housing, a nursing home and the 60 continuing care beds, is no longer in partnership with the nursing home provider that was procured to run the care home by Glasgow City Council. I understand that the council has indicated that it would need to restart the procurement process to identify a new provider and that that could take a further 12 months.
The management of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have carefully considered the implications of those developments, not least the prolonged delay in upgrading the existing continuing care accommodation at Blawarthill. In that context, the board has been in discussion with the council about the potential for using part of the site for its planned 120-bed care home for west Glasgow. The board will consider a paper at its next meeting on 15 February that will recommend the approval of further negotiations with the council about the future use of the site.
On what implications those developments have on the board’s plan for continuing care provision in the west of the city, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has confirmed its intention to carry out a further review, as members have said. I have been assured that the review will consider all the viable options, including maintaining the 30 continuing care beds that are currently provided by St Margaret’s hospice. It is right that that review is completed by the end of the summer, as planned, because, as Des McNulty said, it is important that the uncertainty for staff and those who care deeply about St Margaret’s is not prolonged.
However, it is important that the review is robust and takes full account of all the circumstances. Members will be aware that all boards are required to carry out their statutory obligation to engage appropriately with local people on the redesign of health care services. Any proposals that are considered major service change must be subject to formal public consultation and, ultimately, ministerial approval.
I point out that there was no public consultation on the proposal to take the 30 beds away from St Margaret’s. I also point out that, notwithstanding the fact that continuing care has continued at St Margaret’s, it has also continued at Blawarthill for the past three years in very unsatisfactory premises. Patients are losing out while the board of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde prevaricates and wastes time. It seems to me that it is now time for a decision to be taken in support of St Margaret’s. If 30 other beds are needed, then that should be the basis of the review and the consultation. Please sort out St Margaret’s now and deal with the other issues separately.
I understand Des McNulty’s frustration, which a number of members throughout the chamber share. I will try to be helpful in that regard. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has provided us with an unequivocal assurance that it will be willing to consider and discuss all viable options for future service provision, and the funding that goes with it, with the board of St Margaret’s.
Let me be clear: we will ensure that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde gives full consideration to the issue of the continuing care beds at St Margaret’s. I urge St Margaret’s to take full advantage of what Ross Finnie quite rightly described as a new opportunity that has presented itself to find an agreement on the way forward. I understand that the health board intends to open up further discussions with the hospice in the coming weeks.
I want to be clear about this. The cabinet secretary has said for the past year and a half that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde should enter into negotiations with St Margaret’s about a contract for St Margaret’s to make provision available. She now seems to be saying that St Margaret’s should contribute to the review and that only after the review is finished should there be negotiations about what the position of St Margaret’s will be. We face not just a delay until the end of the summer but, potentially, a further delay after that until negotiations can be completed, if St Margaret’s is successful. The scenario is getting worse and worse the more it is described. Please make a decision to support and secure the future of St Margaret’s now.
Des McNulty misunderstands what I said. I hope that he will not do that, because I think that we can seize this opportunity to get the result that he and many others have expressed a desire to achieve. We expect the discussions to start now. That is why I said “in the coming weeks”, not at the end of the summer. Des McNulty said—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that he wanted to know that there would be a proper process and a proper discussion between the health board and St Margaret’s. What I am saying to Des McNulty tonight is that we can assure him that there will be a proper process and a proper discussion.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No thank you.
I remain confident that, by working together, it is possible to seize the opportunity that has undoubtedly arisen through the situation at Blawarthill to have the discussion that perhaps should have happened, has not happened and should happen now about the option of retaining the beds at St Margaret’s. I understand the strength of feeling about that.
For our part, we will ensure that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is at the table with an open mind. That is the role that I think is most appropriate for the Scottish Government to undertake. I can certainly give members throughout the chamber that commitment this evening.
Meeting closed at 17:53.