Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
13
Parties on record
2,355,091
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,355,091 contributions in session S6, 16 Apr 2026 – 16 May 2026. Latest 30 days: 148. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 14 May 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Committee

Public Petitions Committee 09 February 2016

09 Feb 2016 · S4 · Public Petitions Committee
Item of business
Continued Petitions
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Paterson, Gil SNP Clydebank and Milngavie Watch on SPTV
I will highlight some points. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come here again. The accountancy review must be undertaken sooner rather than later because there is an in-built disadvantage—I will come to that again in a moment or two. My big concern is about the joint boards. What will be the boards’ notional way of deciding on the appropriate funding, remembering that each hospice is in a different place? If there is an in-built disadvantage, it will be very difficult for St Margaret’s to come up with a cohesive argument for an individual joint board, so the situation must be sorted very soon. There have been difficulties with the choice of accountancy firm. Looking at what has been presented to you, I know that it seems that we are getting somewhere, but we have not yet decided on an accountancy firm. The last time that I was at the committee, I suggested—maybe the committee will endorse this—that we use our weight of opinion to tell the Government that, if it wants to look outside Scotland for an accountancy firm, that is fine but it might be difficult. Perhaps we should suggest that a chair be put in place who would take the matter on board. We could, for example, approach a retired High Court judge who may have had some contact or contract with the Government or the health board to appoint an accountancy firm. That is just me speaking—I am not speaking on behalf of the hospice and I have not been briefed on that possibility, but I think that that might be a solution to move the matter on so that it does not get stuck. I just went through some of the information that I gathered previously. If you will indulge me, convener, I will quote from a paper from 10 July 2015. These are the figures for the funding per bed at hospices that are all in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The figure for Accord Hospice is £159,891; the figure for Ardgowan Hospice is £153,083; I do not have a figure for the Marie Curie hospice; the figure for the Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice is £140,471 per bed; and the figure for St Vincent’s Hospice comes in at £131,377. The figure for St Margaret’s is £53,328. The formula is crucial, but nobody that I have contacted, including the health board, can tell me what the formula is. The only way that we can get to the bottom of it is to have a proper review by an accountancy firm. I have posed the question, and you can clearly see that the formula is not based on the number of beds. The number of beds at the other hospices that I have mentioned is, respectively, 8, 8, 14 and 8, whereas it is 26 at St Margaret’s. The petitioner’s letter says: “The appointment of a firm of accountants was discussed in light of the fact that many of those accountancy firms approached by St Margaret of Scotland Hospice felt unable to participate in an accountancy review due to a conflict, by having carried out work in the past for either the Scottish Government or NHSGGC.” I do not want that to block progress. If we cannot find someone, my suggestion might get round that. It is good that there is a willingness to share information. However, we are talking about public money and, if there is information on each of the hospices, it should be published. That will let the committee see the figures and make a judgment. We are coming to the end of a parliamentary session and there might be pressure on the committee to close the petition. Before it is closed, though, we should see that the outcome of the review is published. After that, I will be content and I will not come back to the committee to ask it to keep the petition open.

In the same item of business

The Convener Lab
The next item of business is consideration of 15 continued petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. ...
Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) SNP
I will highlight some points. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come here again. The accountancy review must be undertaken sooner rather than later...
The Convener Lab
Thank you, Gil. The committee is under no pressure to close a petition because we are coming to the end of a parliamentary session. Petitions can be carried ...
Gil Paterson SNP
I think that keeping the petition open has brought us to where we are. I fear that, if it had been closed when the Government recommended that it should be, ...
The Convener Lab
I appreciate that that is your consideration. It has just been brought to my attention that the suggestion of seeking an independent arbiter or chair to draw...
Angus MacDonald SNP
I certainly see the merit in Gil Paterson’s request to continue to monitor the situation prior to closing the petition, with a view to keeping a watching bri...
Jackson Carlaw Con
I pay tribute to Gil Paterson and the previous constituency member, Des McNulty, both of whom have pursued the issue and led on the petition—with the support...
The Convener Lab
That is exactly my point. I should probably declare an interest in that I am the convener of the cross-party group on palliative care and want to see the adv...
Angus MacDonald SNP
I bring the committee’s attention to the final sentence of Shona Robison’s letter of 19 January: “I hope to be in a position to update the Public Petitions ...
The Convener Lab
The information that I have is that the action points on which the petition was raised have been progressed. Therefore, any response to a query from us would...
Angus MacDonald SNP
I see that, convener, but—
The Convener Lab
We have closed other petitions on similar grounds. I am trying to be fair to every petitioner, not just to one. Other people out there would say that the com...
Hanzala Malik Lab
With all respect, we have done a lot. We have gone out of our way with this petition. I recall supporting it on at least two occasions when I thought that it...
The Convener Lab
Do other members have a view? Other than Angus MacDonald, who suggests that we continue the petition, everyone else believes that the petition has come to th...
Angus MacDonald SNP
I sense that I am in the minority. Reluctantly, I agree to close the petition.
John Wilson Ind
I am in the same position as Angus MacDonald. However, I have seen the petition almost all the way through the process and there is a point at which we must ...
The Convener Lab
We have closed petitions on those terms before.
Jackson Carlaw Con
Given the sentence in the cabinet secretary’s letter to which Angus MacDonald has referred, we might close the petition but ask the cabinet secretary whether...
The Convener Lab
I see members nodding. We appear to have reached an agreement. I offer Gil Paterson my personal thanks for the effort that he has put into supporting the pe...
Gil Paterson SNP
I am disappointed, convener. You knew that I would be disappointed. Nevertheless, it would be remiss of me to go away from here without thanking John Wilson,...