New Petitions

We move on to PE453, which is on the secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. Father Stephen Dunn is the principal petitioner and would have been available to speak to the petition last week. However, our meeting last week was postponed and he is unable to attend today. He is replaced by Wendy Johnston, who will speak on behalf of the petitioners. Paul Martin, the local MSP, and Fiona McLeod MSP are also here to address the petition.Our usual rules apply. Wendy—you may speak for three minutes and then I will invite questions from members.

Wendy Johnston set out the main points in the petition. As a result of previous petitions, events took place in January and July 2001. As Wendy said, they took place in partnership with MSPs and the local community. A reconstructed process was planned to consider whether Stobhill hospital was the appropriate site. The local community successfully completed the process, the result of which was that Stobhill hospital was rated fourth in a list of possible options for the preferred site.The health board was unhappy with that result and, as Wendy Johnston said, decided to revisit the matter again in November and December 2001. We believe that the board carefully designed the process to ensure that Stobhill would be the preferred site. The local community accepts the need for a secure unit and appreciates the responsibilities of GGHB, but the main point is that the selection of the site should be open and fair.Dates for decisions should not be brought forward. Wendy Johnston referred to Parkhead hospital; the decision to relocate that hospital was brought forward to add weight to the Stobhill option. One of the main arguments has been that the secure unit should be placed alongside mental health provision such as the resited Parkhead hospital. However, the decision about Parkhead was not taken for health reasons.The local community is concerned that the board brought forward decisions and did not complete the transport study. There is a legal requirement for transport studies to be carried out when reprovision of a health facility is considered but, on this occasion, a transport study was not completed. The local community's main concern is that a form of corruption is involved. The health board corrupted other decisions to add weight to the decision to site the secure unit at Stobhill.The process in November and December involved scoring groups, which were set up to select the site of the secure unit. MSPs and community representatives from north Glasgow boycotted the event because we were to be placed in singular scoring groups. For example, a group of MSPs was to score different options for the site of the secure unit. We felt that that was an unfair method of selecting a site because the scoring groups should have been made up of representatives of various professions and local interests. Because the method was unfair, the MSPs—many of whom are present—councillors and local community representatives boycotted the event, which I think was on 20 December.Wendy Johnston set out the action that she would like the committee to take.

I say for the record—and to put in context the questions from the committee—that Paul Martin wrote to me, as the convener of the committee, to ask me to ask the health board to postpone its final decision on the location of the secure unit until the petition could be heard. My response made it clear that the committee takes a consistent line on petitions that call for the Parliament to intervene in the executive decisions of public bodies in Scotland. Although the Parliament can investigate the framework within which such decisions are usually made, it cannot interfere with the decision-making process in individual cases. Therefore, my letter stated that it was not appropriate for me to accede to Paul Martin's request.The decision to site the secure unit at Stobhill was made on 29 January. Subsequent press reports included a number of quotations to the effect that the Public Petitions Committee was a big disappointment because it did not take action to prevent the siting of the unit at Stobhill. It is important for everybody in Scotland to understand that the committee cannot interfere with decisions that are made by other statutory bodies. The committee must also protect other petitioners, including those who complained about the unnecessary incarceration of inmates at the state hospital in Carstairs, which is a result of the lack of secure units such as the one that is proposed for Stobhill. It is important to understand that the committee cannot intervene in each case.Wendy Johnston made the point that the petition is about whether proper process was followed. The committee can legitimately become involved with that, but we cannot question the decision; we can ensure only that the process, as recommended by the Health and Community Care Committee and the Parliament, is properly applied.

What is the question?

I should point out that it is a bit unfair to ask the petitioner to respond to the Health and Community Care Committee's problems. That is a matter for the committee to sort out.

I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. We receive many petitions about the siting of various things. It could be said that you are saying "Not in my back yard" to the siting of the unit. What do people in Glasgow feel about the issue and where would they prefer the unit to be sited? How does the community as a whole feel?

Does the greater community in Glasgow have a preferred location?

Does that feeling extend to the whole of Glasgow or is it confined to the local area?

So no other sites have been put forward in a way that allows people—

I have mentioned the fiercely technical exercise in which the community took part in January and August 2001. That exercise considered a wide range of sites throughout Glasgow—

There were eight options, were there not?

Yes.

Were there still eight options in November?

There were about 32 options, but we came down to two—

Sorry, we came down to three options: Belvidere, Lennox Castle and Stobhill.

I want to be clear about this. Our information was that there were eight options at the early stage. You said that Stobhill came fourth out of eight options.

Yes. The event that the community and elected members were involved in planning took place in January and August 2001. The exercise considered eight options throughout the city; there was also a status quo option to do nothing. As I said, the community became involved in a fiercely technical weighting exercise. I will not bore the committee with the details, but essentially the community had to score a number of factors about the Stobhill site. Not only that, but the community, elected members—including myself—and other community representatives queried the process. For example, we would ask why a certain factor had been given a score of 95. Following that event, the Stobhill site was ranked fourth.

Was there consensus about that position?

Yes, but the health board was concerned that the event had not been designed properly. On the other hand, the community believes that the health board felt that way because it did not get the outcome that it wanted. The concern is that the event in November and December was orchestrated to ensure the result that the health board favoured.

Will you explain how dividing people by profession—into groups of politicians and community activists, for example—would fix the result?

The issue relates to my sitting with Frank McAveety, for example, who is the MSP for the Belvidere side.

Conflict arises.

Territorial disputes could occur. A normal option appraisal exercise would involve a mixture of MSPs, health professionals, community councillors and others. The acute services review used such a mixture.

Did the acute services review follow normal practice?

Yes. For example, Dorothy-Grace Elder and I—and others—were involved in discussions about the acute services review. We would have welcomed mixed groups to discuss the unit. We made that proposal several times, but it was dismissed, because it was felt that if community groups and MSPs were mixed, they would not reach consensus.

So the boycott related to how the groups were constituted.

Yes. The concern was that having a group of MSPs would put one MSP against another and would not allow people to benefit from the expertise of health professionals, for example, and community representatives. An option appraisal exercise is intended to facilitate sharing of expertise among the groups that are involved. That arrangement was dismissed, because the concern was that if I sat in the same room as a general practitioner or a health professional from the primary care trust, for example, we would not reach consensus, so it was thought best to place me in a group with my fellow MSPs.

The information that we have received from the health board is that no MSPs or MPs expressed an interest in the scoring exercise.

Wendy Johnston is interested in that matter. We said that we would participate in the event if the scoring groups were established in a way that would allow fair interrogation through the option appraisal exercise. We showed an interest and were anxious to participate if we would have a genuine opportunity to share our views with health professionals. We did not say that we were not interested in participating. I am sure that Fiona McLeod and Dorothy-Grace Elder will confirm that.

So MSPs were not uninterested in scoring per se; they did not support the way of scoring that the board proposed.

Do you have any final comments?

You are free to stay and listen to the discussion of what we will do with the petition. Thank you for your evidence. Interruption. I am sorry; Winnie Ewing has a question.

It has long been accepted that a secure unit requires to be built. Health board professionals repeatedly mention Glasgow, but we are talking about greater Glasgow, which has an area that is wider than Glasgow's boundary. Glasgow has a population of about 450,000 to 500,000, but the health board covers a population of about 850,000. A larger population and area must be considered in relation to the territorial issues.

Thanks again.The recommendation is that the committee should initially write to the health board to ask it to comment formally on the issues that the petitioners have raised. That is important, because the serious suggestion has been made that the health board tried to manipulate the consultation process to obtain the result that it desired. It is only fair to the health board that we obtain its response before we decide whether to refer the petition formally to the Health and Community Care Committee. We will send the petition to the committee for information while we await the health board's reply. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.

When we receive the health board's response, it will be open to us to refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee formally and to ask it to consider further the more general issues that the petition highlights, in the context of the initial recommendations that it made in response to the Stobhill petition—PE48—on which Dr Simpson reported.I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will keep them informed of the petition's progress.