The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-5336, in the name of Des McNulty, on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with deep concern the decision of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to remove the funding for 30 continuing care beds from the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in Clydebank by 2013, which will impact adversely on the service model provided by the hospice’s dedicated staff as well as on the hospice’s finances; notes that this decision came immediately after an inspection by the Care Commission that rated provision at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice as being excellent on every indicator, and believes that the approach adopted by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in its dealings with the hospice is unacceptable.
17:06
Looking back over my notes for parliamentary questions, for my appearances at the Public Petitions Committee and for the speech that I delivered during the previous members’ business debate on St Margaret’s of Scotland Hospice, I discovered that the last time that a big contingent of people came through from the hospice to the Parliament was for the carol service in the run-up to Christmas 2008, when we were graced with the presence of Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien. This time, the debate takes place during Lent, which for Christians is the time of atonement before the joy of the resurrection. I hope that today’s debate will be the precursor to joy. If so, it will be widespread joy because no issue unites the community of Clydebank and neighbouring areas like the wish to secure the future of St Margaret’s hospice.
Although the St Margaret’s of Scotland Hospice is run by a religious order, the hospice is a non-denominational unit that has developed into a facility with 60 beds, comprising 30 continuing-care beds for frail adult patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care and 30 palliative care beds. That makes St Margaret’s the biggest hospice in Scotland. The hospice believes that the two types of provision are complementary: qualified and dedicated nursing staff care for both groups of patients. The reputation of St Margaret’s is absolutely outstanding both locally and in the opinion of the care commission, which recently reported the hospice to be excellent on every count.
St Margaret’s is under threat because of decisions taken by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board that have serious consequences for the hospice’s financial viability. The issue dates back to a consultation in 2000 on a proposal for a new facility on the site of the former Blawarthill hospital that was to include
“a number of NHS beds for the frail elderly and elderly mentally ill people but also social care beds and other services”.
At that stage, there was no indication that any decision on elderly care provision at Blawarthill hospital would have an impact on provision at St Margaret’s, which was not a special consultee in that exercise. Subsequently, in 2004-05, a study of need for elderly care was commissioned whose findings suggested a reduced need for NHS continuing care beds in the western part of Glasgow and an increased need for other forms of residential care, including care for patients with various forms of dementia. That is the factual background to the situation.
The health board produced proposals that suggested that St Margaret’s should lose its continuing care provision, which was to be consolidated on the Blawarthill site. Other proposals suggested that St Margaret’s should become a residential care facility and provide care for mentally ill patients. The hospice feels—and I feel—that those proposals are inappropriate, given the particular mission and circumstances of St Margaret’s.
A palliative care institution whose first purpose is the care of the dying should not be used as a long-term facility for elderly day care or for mentally ill people who also might require care over a long period. A continuation of the particular combination of services that is provided at St Margaret’s is the correct solution. I have received a lot of support from people in the area who also believe that what St Margaret’s is doing is the right thing and that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde should have accepted that St Margaret’s is a centre of excellence in the area and built its service around it. I am not saying that what has been proposed for Blawarthill should not go ahead in some form or that there should be no complementarity between the different provisions in the different areas, but it seems passing strange that the health board seems to want to take services away from St Margaret’s, where they are provided very well, put those services elsewhere and require St Margaret’s to change to something that St Margaret’s feels does not fit.
I do not want this to be a party-political issue. This is a community issue. There has been a huge response from the general public to the situation at St Margaret’s. The petition that was launched by the hospice attracted more than 100,000 signatures, which makes it the second-largest petition that this Parliament has ever received. St Margaret’s enjoys continuing support, not only from those who are involved in it directly—the relatives of past patients, the people who volunteer to support the hospice by rattling collecting tins, the people who pop in and out of the hospice to visit patients—but from the broader community. People support what St Margaret’s has done in the past and want it to continue doing it in the future.
Surely we can all come together in a consensual way and find a way forward that protects what St Margaret’s currently offers and can offer in the future; something that maintains the quality and support that is given by the dedicated staff, many of whom are here tonight. The hospice is seen as a valuable treasure in my constituency, and it serves the constituencies of many of my colleagues, who I am sure will speak tonight.
The right solution is to secure the future of not only the continuing care beds but also the palliative care beds, which could be at risk if the funding arrangements change.
From what I know of St Margaret’s—not nearly as much as someone local would know—it is an excellent facility. That is why I am worried about why NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would take the attitude that it is taking. Is it down to an economy of scale that will be achieved with the new provision? What rationale has it advanced?
It is not for me to get into the head of the health board, but I might be able to offer Margo MacDonald a possible answer. It seems to me that the health board thinks that the NHS should be the provider of continuing care and that voluntary sector organisations should not be responsible for providing that category of mainstream care. If that is the case, I do not understand the reasoning. St Margaret’s, as a voluntary sector institution, provides continuing care and palliative care extremely effectively, in terms of not only quality but cost effectiveness.
The optimum solution is one that maintains the integrity of St Margaret’s and meets the demands and concerns of the local community. That would be in the best interests of the patients whom the health board serves.
I hope that, when she responds to the debate, the minister will say that there is a way forward and that there is a route map to a sensible solution. The issue has gone on for too long and the uncertainty is too great. I want to find an answer to the question, as do many other people. I hope that we can make progress today.
17:15
I am grateful to Des McNulty for bringing this important debate on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice to the Parliament. I congratulate him and I put on record that what he is doing is worth while.
St Margaret’s provides care that is second to none, as is evidenced by a petition that has been signed by 130,000 people. The hospice has the full support of East Dunbartonshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council. Contrary to the claims of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, West Dunbartonshire Council has never supported the plans for St Margaret’s, and I think that East Dunbartonshire Council is in the same category.
No one has challenged the cost of the beds at St Margaret’s compared with provision at other establishments, so it is not cost that has put the hospice under threat. We do not understand why the long-term future of St Margaret’s is in jeopardy, as it will be if the plans to remove the 30 long-term care beds go ahead. Indeed, there is a complete lack of coherent reasons for the decision.
If St Margaret’s can do the job well, at the right price, why move the beds to Blawarthill? Could it be that the only way to get the numbers to stack up and make the private finance initiative project at Blawarthill work is by shifting the St Margaret’s beds to the new PFI hospital? When I consider the concerns that John Bannon has expressed, that is the only logical conclusion that I can come to.
All the vital decisions about the switch of beds were taken in Glasgow by a Glasgow-centric committee and have been adhered to by the current health board. Is it Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board in name only? Does the board exist only to consider Glasgow issues? Should it be renamed Glasgow NHS board? How else can we rationalise the shifting of provision that is successful both in quality and cost? Why move beds a mile and a half up the road—six minutes by car—from Clydebank to Glasgow, into the custody of a provider that has a poor track record?
John Bannon’s revelations give us hope and comfort. He has insisted that he was unaware of all the information on the Blawarthill-St Margaret’s deal. We know that St Margaret’s now has support from members of the health board who take a different view of the original plan. We must convince more people on the health board of the benefits of retaining the beds at the hospice. When board members have all the information, they might come up with a different solution.
People who are arguing for provision to remain at St Margaret’s know that it is not about a choice between Blawarthill and St Margaret’s. I have always said—from day 1—that Blawarthill and St Margaret’s can and should prosper. If there is a little more open dialogue and understanding of the entire proposition, the security of both establishments can be achieved for the long term, to the benefit of the whole of the west of Scotland.
17:19
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate. He and I disagree on many things, but I was happy to participate in a public meeting in his constituency in support of St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, and to say on that occasion that the community that he represents has been well served by his efforts on behalf of the hospice.
I have been quite happy to fall in behind his considerable leadership, in partnership with the hospice, in fighting to retain this valuable facility. I do so as well in tribute to the formidable Sister Rita and the considerable team of people who have been working tirelessly in the community in support of the hospice. Both Des McNulty and Gil Paterson referred to the petition, which has more than 100,000 signatures.
Like many, I have personal experience of St Margaret’s, as an aunt of my wife spent the last few weeks of her life there. Many people have a connection with the hospice because a loved one approaching the end of their life received the best of care there. That is not to say that St Margaret’s is the only hospice in the west of Scotland, because there are others and I am sure that many of us have visited them. In my capacity as health spokesman, I try to get round all of them, and I find a consistent theme: they are supported financially by health boards, but the vast majority of the funding that they receive comes from the community itself. Communities therefore feel a tremendous sense of ownership of and commitment to the facilities, and are concerned to see that they survive. Undoubtedly, in the case of St Margaret’s, strong wills are being employed by all those seeking to find a solution. I certainly realise that it would not be too strong a statement to say that one could quite easily be strongarmed—if that is not a contradiction in terms—by Sister Rita in her support of the hospice and all the people surrounding her.
I have also been struck by the way in which the health board has approached the issue. As a West of Scotland MSP, it would be easy for me to say on all occasions that the health board is misplaced, that it is acting irrationally and that it consists of a woeful bunch of people who take no cognisance of public opinion.
I am afraid that it is true that, as a regional list member, I can cite a number of examples in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area where the community feels that the consultative process that should have been embarked on has not been as comprehensive or as genuine as it should have been. It is against that background that I find it extraordinary that, after all this time since the first debate that Des McNulty arranged for us to have in the chamber on the issue, we seem to be no clearer, no wiser and no nearer a solution that will secure the future of St Margaret’s. The people working there are not doing so to spend the best part of their careers campaigning for the hospice to stay open; they are spending the best part of their careers—they hope—caring for the patients in the hospice. The interminable debate that we are having about its future requires to be brought to a conclusion.
It is pretty clear to me that our standing or sitting here and wishing that the various parties concerned will, between them and on their own account, arrive at an agreement is simply wishful thinking—it is not going to happen. There has been an extension, because there was a threat that the funding would cease from April this year and that we would have nowhere else to go. There is now a window of opportunity, but it is only an opportunity if proper and extensive use is made of it.
I accept that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing’s favoured way of resolving areas of major service change—the appointment of an independent scrutiny panel—would not be appropriate in the case of a hospice in the west of Scotland. However, I am afraid that we are past the point at which it is possible for the cabinet secretary not to intervene to broker a solution of some kind. I accept that it is not possible for her to micromanage each health board, but it is time now for somebody to be charged with brokering an agreement between both parties involved: the health board and St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. It must be somebody who has the cabinet secretary’s authority and the good will and authority of West of Scotland members of the Scottish Parliament and the wider Scottish Parliament. They must be charged with ensuring that we arrive soon at an equitable solution that secures the future of the hospice and the valuable care that it provides. Time is running out and we have had enough debate. It is time for somebody to intervene to ensure that agreement is reached.
17:24
I, too, thank my colleague Des McNulty for raising the issue again, and I am delighted to support him. As he mentioned, it is more than two years since we last discussed the matter. Mr McNulty’s constituency lies next door to mine. As a result of that close proximity, many of my constituents have been, and continue to be, beneficiaries of the excellent care that is provided by St Margaret of Scotland Hospice.
I use the word “excellent” deliberately, as that is the score that the hospice received on all counts when it was inspected by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in October last year. On quality of information, quality of care and support, quality of environment, quality of staffing and quality of management and leadership, it was rated as excellent. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that there are many NHS establishments that could learn a few lessons from the people who provide such tremendous support and service to their patients at St Margaret’s.
When we had the debate two years ago, 60,000 people had signed the petition that my constituent Marjorie McCance organised and, as we have heard, the number of signatures has more than doubled. Despite that, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has taken the decision to remove the funding for the continuing care beds from 2013. That will obviously have a dramatic financial impact on the hospice. I am advised by my constituents that St Margaret’s is the most underfunded hospice in Scotland, and I would welcome any comment from the cabinet secretary on why that is the case. Equally, moving the patients from St Margaret’s to other facilities will have a cost for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can quantify how much that is.
Like other members, I have had the opportunity to visit the facilities in the purpose-built Mary Aikenhead building. It was a fine sunny day when I went there, and I have to say that those facilities would be hard to beat. They would certainly be extremely expensive to replicate elsewhere, and that would be difficult for a health board that is having to cut several million pounds from its budget to do.
In my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, the age of the population is higher than the national average and many residents live well into their 80s and 90s. That demographic brings with it many medical problems that are related to an elderly population. We rightly want people to live independent lives for as long as possible, but the types of illness that old age can bring require a great deal of palliative provision. As I said, we know that that can be provided at St Margaret’s and that the quality of provision is excellent.
Gil Paterson is promoting the proposed palliative care (Scotland) bill. To be fair, he has been heavily involved in the St Margaret’s campaign, and I hope that he keeps up the pressure on the cabinet secretary—I am sure that he will. She can rest assured that the 130,000 signatories to Marjorie McCance’s petition, who include many of my constituents, most certainly will.
The health board must justify its decision to the cabinet secretary on cost as well as care grounds. As we move into a period in which there is much greater scrutiny of every pound from the public purse that is spent, it is incumbent on all in the public sector to justify their financial decisions. The decision on St Margaret’s must also be justified as a medical decision. I believe that the services that it provides are value for money, and I hope that it will be able to continue to provide them long after 2013.
17:28
I, too, congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate. He asked whether it is a party-political matter: it is self-evident from what has been said in the debate that it is not and that there is clear all-party support for securing the future of St Margaret’s hospice.
As Jackson Carlaw said, we must accept how sad it is that the dispute between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and St Margaret’s has gone on for so long. That is the issue. I share his view that we seek greater assistance from the cabinet secretary, if that is possible, in resolving the situation. Those of us who have met her or who have exchanged correspondence with her know that it is not the case that she is not interested in the matter. As Jackson Carlaw said, there are issues about micromanagement.
However, we must understand the high level of distrust that has arisen between St Margaret’s and the board. Letters from the board saying, “Good gracious! There isn’t a problem here. We’ve offered you all these options. There is no difficulty. You really are the stick-in-the-mud. It’s all your fault,” are not helpful. However, that is not to suggest that both sides have not taken difficult positions, or that either side might have expressed itself differently.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde wrote to Sister Rita and Professor Martin last year to say that all sorts of options are available. However, the appendix to the letter contained the option that the health board wants and the one that the hospice does not want—”Take it or leave it.” There are ways of writing letters, and that is not one of them.
One of the issues is a sense of trust. St Margaret’s rejected a proposed mental health bed provision outcome, and having tried to persuade St Margaret’s that it should take that line, the health board’s letter of November 2009 said that it has reviewed the situation and, although it knows that St Margaret’s does not like the outcome, it has decided to consolidate the beds at Gartnavel. How on earth can there be any trust in the propositions that are being put when an offer is made with one hand and taken away with another, and no choice is offered at all?
Gil Paterson made the point that is not really about a connection between St Margaret’s and Blawarthill, and that is all right, up to a point. If there is really no connection, it is strange that the funding for St Margaret’s is to be withdrawn when so-called much better super-duper Blawarthill is put in place, and the health board is saying, “St Margaret’s, we don’t care about you. You’re no use. You’re gone.” That is another failure to induce trust into the discussions.
I wholly agree with Jackson Carlaw that the matter has reached the point at which neither side is capable of productive exchanges. That is not a criticism; it is just a fact. I have written to the cabinet secretary suggesting the very point that Jackson Carlaw made that there should be some form of arbiter to seek a solution. I do not believe that the trust that has been lost can readily be restored. It is not helped by the allegations that have been made by the non-executive member, Mr John Bannon.
The conduct of that relationship is also difficult. Mr Bannon continues to seek information from the board that it refuses to disclose, so Mr Bannon is now no longer in discussion with the health board. If the cabinet secretary receives a report on the incident, she will receive it in the knowledge that the health board has been unable to discuss the matter with one of the parties to the complaint, which will make it difficult for any report to be even-handed.
I join in supporting the call in the motion that the dispute must be resolved. The facility is a community facility and any health board worth its salt should not be spending public money on building other buildings if it has looked at the wider picture. St Margaret’s is at the core of that wider picture and it should not be ignored and swept aside come 2013. There is no logic, rationale or anything at all to support NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s proposition.
17:33
Like others, I start by paying tribute to my colleague Des McNulty for securing this debate on St Margaret’s hospice. I know that he has campaigned hard alongside many other members, irrespective of their politics, to secure a positive result for the hospice. As Gil Paterson did, I acknowledge the continuing support of West Dunbartonshire Council and East Dunbartonshire Council.
However, it is the support of ordinary people from all walks of life that gives me a sense of just how much the hospice is valued and loved: we have heard about the petition of well over 100,000 signatures, which shows us that. Spending just a little time in the hospice with the “formidable” Sister Rita—I use Jackson Carlaw’s word—and her team lets us begin to understand what a special place it is. I know that some might regard that as just an emotional response, but no such charge can be laid at the door of the care commission. As others have said, a recent report on the care that is provided at the hospice rated it as excellent across every indicator, so there can be absolutely no argument whatever about the quality of the provision or the scale of support for the hospice.
Others have explained the history of how we got here, so I need not rehearse it. Suffice it to say that at the heart of the issue is the funding for 30 continuing care beds for the elderly.
I think that my colleagues around the chamber would agree that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has not covered itself in glory—indeed, some members may choose to use stronger language. It has been less than transparent with the press—I commend Scottish Review for its investigative journalism, which has helped to expose this sorry tale—and it has actively obstructed its own board members, such as John Bannon, who sought only to understand what lay behind the board’s decision not to fund continuing care beds at St Margaret’s. Now, John Bannon has been threatened under the code of conduct by the health board on which he serves. Is that the behaviour that we should expect from a health board—the pursuit of a non-executive member, appointed by the minister, who is merely after answers to perfectly legitimate questions? I trust that it is not.
The cabinet secretary has asked for an urgent report, and I am grateful to her for intervening in the matter. I hope that she can tell the chamber in her summing up what action she is able to take. I have made it clear, on behalf of my party, that Scottish Labour is committed to funding the 30 continuing care beds at St Margaret’s if we are successful in the Scottish Parliament elections. That is a clear and unequivocal commitment. For the benefit of Jackson Carlaw, I will explain the basis of that decision. I was deeply disappointed with his press statement today, which was entirely at odds with his very considered speech this evening, the terms of which I entirely support and agree with.
Members will be aware that the decision on provision of continuing care beds at Blawarthill hospital was made by Greater Glasgow Health Board in 2000. At that time, the modelling of future needs was based on the territory that was served by the board as it was constituted then. The health board expanded in 2006 to include the Clyde part of the former Argyll and Clyde Health Board area. Consequently, the likely demand for continuing care beds should reflect the additional population of the whole of West Dunbartonshire and parts of Argyll and Bute, as well as the population south of the river, many of whom already make use of the hospice. There is, therefore, a need for the additional capacity that could be provided at St Margaret’s alongside that which is provided at Blawarthill. We are all, unfortunately, getting older although, helpfully, we are living longer. This would not be profligate use of taxpayers’ money, as Jackson Carlaw might contend. Rather, it is a considered position that seeks the retention of a much-valued facility. I hope that he would genuinely welcome that.
I will support any measure that makes progress for St Margaret’s and secures the funding of continuing care beds, wherever that suggestion comes from. Two things are abundantly clear to me. First, we must shine a light on the lack of transparency and the obstruction that has taken place by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Secondly, and above all, we must end the uncertainty for the hospice. The Parliament is at its best when we work together; let us do that tonight for St Margaret’s.
17:38
Like other members, I congratulate Des McNulty on securing tonight’s debate. I recognise his commitment to the issue and the commitment that has been shown by many other members, including Gil Paterson. I also recognise the strong commitment of the many people who are involved in the campaign; they have worked hard to highlight the issues that St Margaret’s hospice faces. I welcome those who are with us in the public gallery tonight, and I am sure that there are many others who could not make it here tonight; it is important to recognise their interest and commitment as well.
The presence of so many MSPs in the chamber and the level and intensity of the debate reflect the importance that we all place on the services that are provided to people who require palliative and end-of-life care, especially those services for people who have complex needs as they reach the end of their lives. Given the number of letters I receive and the work of the Public Petitions Committee, I am under no illusions about the affection in which people hold St Margaret’s hospice and the support it receives from them.
I would like, before I consider the specific issues that are raised in the motion, to take the opportunity to thank everybody who is involved in the provision of palliative and end-of-life care for the commitment that they show in the jobs they do and in implementing the recommendations of “Living and Dying Well: A national action plan for palliative and end of life care in Scotland”. As Jackson Carlaw said, there are many hospices the length and breadth of the country that are doing excellent work. I am sure that all members want me to place on record our grateful thanks to them.
I take this opportunity to state unequivocally in the chamber that there has never been any issue with the quality of care that St Margaret’s provides. Like other members, I commend St Margaret’s on its performance, which was documented in the recent care commission inspection. I have visited the hospice. That visit—along with what I know about the hospice in general—made it clear to me that it provides a high standard of care.
It is important to point out that St Margaret’s provides two types of care in two discrete areas of the hospice. The beds that are subject to the decision that we are debating this evening are not for those who face the imminent end of their life and are in need of palliative and end-of-life care, they are for those who require NHS continuing care, which is a package of continuing health care that is provided and solely funded by the NHS. The 30 palliative care beds at St Margaret’s are not directly affected by the decision, because they are funded under a separate arrangement.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is, like all health boards throughout the country, responsible for offering the services that meet the needs of the local population. The board’s decision on continuing care beds is based on an assessment of the future need for such beds. The response to Jackie Baillie’s point is that that assessment was updated in 2008, so it takes account of the area that is now served by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
The board concluded that just over 300 beds are required. Its conclusion takes account of the projected increase in the number of people in the population who are over 80 and of the development of community services. I understand that the projection allows for a 15 per cent increase in demand in admissions during the next decade, if that becomes necessary. The impact of bed reductions is affecting not only St Margaret’s—26 beds will be removed from the Mansionhouse unit, which is an NHS facility. I will touch on the point about Blawarthill, but I will come back to John Bannon’s concerns at the end of my remarks.
There is a suggestion that the redevelopment of Blawarthill is the reason for the reduction of beds at St Margaret’s. Right now, Blawarthill has 60 beds and, following the redevelopment, it will have 60 beds. There is no increase in provision at Blawarthill, and beds are not being moved from St Margaret’s to Blawarthill. Indeed, the number of beds at Blawarthill has actually halved during the past number of years; the issue that we are discussing is part of a bigger debate about the provision of continuing care beds.
I want to look to the future because that is what is most important. I make it clear that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde does not wish to end its relationship with St Margaret’s—on the contrary, it wants to continue the relationship and has offered, as Des McNulty said, a number of options and the palliative care managed clinical network is considering a specific proposal from St Margaret’s. I expect Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to work with St Margaret’s to find a good solution and I hope that St Margaret’s will take part in that process. Des McNulty said that there would be great joy this evening if a commitment was given to secure the future of the hospice. I will be clear: there is a commitment to secure the future of St Margaret’s. I have given that commitment, but both sides will need to sit down and be prepared to find a solution.
Will the cabinet secretary outline the timeframe for the process?
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has made it clear that the continuing care beds will remain at St Margaret’s until 2012—it has said that the hospice will not require the beds after that. As Jackson Carlaw said, there is a window of opportunity to find a solution. I hear what Jackson Carlaw and Ross Finnie say and I will reflect on it because I have respect for both members, but it is important that we do not absolve NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde or the organisations that it works with of their responsibility to come together and find a solution. I believe that it is possible to find a solution.
In the few seconds that I have left I want to say something about the decision-making process. As has been mentioned, I received a letter from John Bannon, who is a non-executive member of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I was concerned to read that letter as it raised some very serious questions. I therefore asked the chairman of the health board, Andrew Robertson, to provide me with a report on the decision-making process. I have received that report and I am in the process of considering it. The decision to redevelop the site dates back to 2000, so there is a great deal of paperwork to consider, but I hope to be in a position to reply to John Bannon soon.
I think that all members in the chamber will unite around the desire for a solution that allows NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to provide the services that it assesses to be required, alongside its responsibility to assess the needs of the populations it services, and allows St Margaret’s hospice to continue doing the excellent work that it does. If both sides work together with a willingness to find that solution, I have every confidence, even given the events of the past couple of years, that it can be found.
Meeting closed at 17:46.Previous
Decision Time