Current Petitions

The final petition is from Father Stephen Dunn on the proposed secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. At our previous meeting, we agreed to postpone consideration of the petition until this meeting to give members time to consider its contents.Greater Glasgow NHS Board's response defends its procedures in respect of the second consultation and tries to answer the various criticisms that were made of the process by the petitioners and Paul Martin, who is the local MSP.Before we consider the suggested action, does Dorothy-Grace Elder wish to say something?

It is suggested that we cannot interfere in executive decisions of Greater Glasgow NHS Board—those are its responsibility and not the Parliament's. However, we could consider the petition as a test of the recommendations for improved consultation by health boards that were made by the Health and Community Care Committee following its consideration of the original petition about the siting of the Stobhill unit. It is suggested that the committee could agree to refer the petition and associated correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee with a recommendation that that committee further consider the more general issues that the petition highlights in the context of its previous recommendations. In other words, did the consultation live up to the standards set by the Health and Community Care Committee in its original report?

The clerk has informed me that west of Scotland health boards will be conducting a consultation on future proposals and will be assessing what went wrong with the Stobhill one in order to learn from it. I am sorry to tell Paul Martin, who has just arrived, that we are nearing the end of the discussion on PE453. However, as we have not finished, he will be able to speak on the matter. I will summarise for him what we have discussed. As ever, we cannot interfere in the executive decisions of Greater Glasgow NHS Board. However, we consider the matter to be a test of the recommendations on how consultation should be conducted that the Health and Community Care Committee made following the original petition about the Stobhill site. We are recommending that PE453 be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, in the context of its previous recommendations, to ask that committee to consider further the more general issues that PE453 highlights.

I apologise for being late. I thought that the committee would discuss other petitions before discussing PE453. I waited across the road for that reason.My first point is that there were inaccuracies in the board's response. I know that the committee has had a long morning and perhaps does not want me to discuss each of those inaccuracies. However, an important inaccuracy in the board's response is the claim that I was the only MSP who boycotted the scoring event. Dorothy-Grace Elder, who is present, is also a Glasgow MSP and I think that she will confirm that I was not the only MSP who boycotted that event. Correspondence that I received from Brian Fitzpatrick will also confirm what I say. Misinformation has been provided to the Public Petitions Committee. The committee should pursue that important point. I will pursue the issue, because the correspondence that I have and which I should provide to the Public Petitions Committee, makes it clear that I was not the only MSP who decided not to take part in the final event, which was scoring option number 3. The Public Petitions Committee should pursue the fact that it has been provided with misinformation. There are other inaccuracies in the board's response, particularly about the transport study that must be carried out in relation to the proposed closure of a hospital facility, such as the closure of east end mental health services at Parkhead hospital. As members will be aware, the legislation is clear that, prior to the closure of a hospital facility, a transport study must be carried out. The board says in its response that the transport study will take place later, although it has already decided to close the Parkhead facility. That is a serious discrepancy in the implementation process. The petitioners made the point that that decision about the transport study was pointing a loaded gun to ensure a decision in favour of the Stobhill site.My final point is about the board not wanting to hold an event at which we would disagree with each other. The board did not want to have mixed scoring groups that consisted of MSPs, councillors and community representatives because it claimed that we would not reach a consensus. On that point, I remind the convener that he and I are members of a parliamentary party that disagrees on many issues, but that does not mean that we are forced to join other parties. As much as some people might often want that line to be followed, we are not herded into separate political parties in which we all agree with each other. I have made the point on several occasions that the design of the scoring process was carefully manipulated to ensure that the outcome would be the choice of Stobhill. A much broader issue for the Health and Community Care Committee to consider, beyond the consultation process—as members will know, I have raised that issue in my member's bill proposal—is the broader issue of misinformation that has been provided to the Public Petitions Committee. That is a serious issue for Parliament and this committee. However, there is also the issue of how the consultation process was designed to ensure that the Stobhill site was chosen. The Health and Community Care Committee should consider that issue—not to change the decision, but to look at the way in which it was made.

It strikes me that if the Public Petitions Committee challenges the board on what you said about misinformation to the committee, the process will be delayed. If we pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, it can start work immediately. We would have to wait for the board's response, which we would eventually send to the Health and Community Care Committee, so the petition would just be delayed from going to that committee for weeks.

I appreciate that, convener. I must raise one point with you, and perhaps with the Presiding Officer. The board's response is misinformation. The board shows contempt of the committee by advising it that I was the only MSP who did not participate in the event.In fact, neither Dorothy-Grace Elder, who is a committee member and an MSP for Glasgow, nor Fiona McLeod, who attended the meeting at which the petition was first discussed, participated. I have correspondence from Brian Fitzpatrick and letters that I sent to the board to advise it on behalf of my fellow Labour MSPs who represent Glasgow that we would not participate in the event because we were concerned about the design of the scoring groups. That makes it clear that we would not participate in the event.Misinforming the committee is serious. The committee and the Parliament must pursue that issue. Unelected quangos cannot provide the Parliament with inaccurate information. We must take a stance on that.

I suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee and refer Paul Martin's other points to the Standards Committee. It is important not only for this committee, but for every committee, to ensure that information is accurate. That small part of the matter should go to the Standards Committee, while the petition should go to the Health and Community Care Committee.

That is helpful. We could refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the process and whether it met the standards that have been set. We could give the board a chance to respond to what has been said before we consider whether to refer some issues to the Standards Committee. The board must have the chance to respond first.

I am advised that it is better procedurally if we give the board a chance to respond before we go further. Do we agree to write to the board first for its response?

Will the committee ask the board to say whether it received correspondence from my colleagues, including Brian Fitzpatrick and Fiona McLeod? The board has made a serious suggestion in its letter. If the board did receive correspondence from my colleagues, the Parliament will have to consider what further action it will take in relation to a health board that has misinformed a committee and had information at its disposal that contradicted what it was saying.

We will ask the board whether it received correspondence from Fiona McLeod and Brian Fitzpatrick. Is there anyone else?

I have also sent correspondence about a member of the board's staff against whom I have made a formal complaint. I do not want to give the committee that information, unless it wants me to. The complaint has not been dealt with. In that correspondence, I said that my colleagues and I would not participate in the event, because mixed scoring groups were not being used. I will provide that letter if the committee wants me to, but it relates mainly to my complaint against a senior member of the board's staff. I would like that complaint to be concluded before I provide the information, but if the committee wants me to provide the letter, I will do so.

It has been suggested that we ask the board whether it has received that correspondence. We do not need to see the correspondence at this stage.

We have that information—the clerk can provide it.

Any member who wants the information can just see Steve Farrell.

Are the proposals agreed to?Members indicated agreement.