Current Petitions

Petition PE453 is from Father Stephen Dunn, on the secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. The committee has dealt with the petition for a considerable time. It revolves around the petitioner's continuing concern about the scoring groups that were used to secure the preferred site at Stobhill in Glasgow.Members have a record of committee's previous consideration, which began on 5 February, and the latest response from Greater Glasgow NHS Board, which addresses the additional points that Paul Martin raised at a previous meeting. There are details of the positions taken by MSPs in response to the scoring process.Greater Glasgow NHS Board has apologised for not providing the committee with the information in its previous letter, but it provides further information on the rationale for proceeding with scoring in the way that it did. The response also covers the specific point that Mr Martin raised about the transport study and confirms that Paul Martin's formal complaint, which relates to a member of its staff, has been investigated and that a reply has been issued to him.Paul Martin has submitted an additional letter to me, in which he refers to a letter that he wrote to the chief executive of Greater Glasgow NHS Board in November 2001, which stated that Glasgow Labour MSPs did not support the structure of the scoring groups. He also encloses copies of letters to the chief executive from Brian Fitzpatrick MSP and Janis Hughes MSP, which indicate that they would boycott the event.Mr Martin calls for the committee to take into account what he considers to be a deliberate attempt by the board to misinform it. He asks the committee to consider what action the Minister for Health and Community Care could take in respect of what he considers to be a flawed consultation process whereby members have been prevented from taking part in an event that affects the future of mental health in Glasgow.It is clear that the board thinks that it has conducted a consultation process in as full and inclusive a manner as possible. The board's view is that Stobhill has been demonstrated to be the best site and that it has been supported by the health board, local authority representatives, the health council, staff, those who represent user and carer interests and the community councils.Individual MSPs have strong views about the handling of the matter, but the location of the secure unit at Stobhill is a matter for the health board and the committee cannot seek to intervene or interfere. It has been claimed that MSPs were prevented from taking part in the scoring event, but they chose to boycott it. If the petitioners think that the health board has not dealt with the matter correctly, it would be open to them to take that up with the health service ombudsman.However, it is suggested that the concerns that have been raised by the petitioners and MSPs could legitimately be considered to be 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 PE48. It is suggested that we refer the petition and its associated correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee, with the recommendation that it consider further the more general issues highlighted by the petition in the context of its previous recommendations.

I am not happy with that suggestion. I have been supportive of the view that the Public Petitions Committee should not seek to change decisions by bodies on the tier below it. However, I am now coming to the view that, in the case of quangos, we should be exploring the general principle more carefully. It seems that health boards across Scotland are acting against the general will of local people and individual MSPs.We should write to the Health and Community Care Committee asking for its views, rather than referring the petition formally. We should also seek the views of Paul Martin, Janis Hughes and Brian Fitzpatrick and send them the report and a full copy of the Official Report of today's discussion.

The committee has consistently taken the view that we should not get involved in the executive decisions of other bodies. PE48, on Stobhill, was submitted a long time ago. The Health and Community Care Committee dealt with that petition and laid out recommendations on the consultation methods of health boards in such circumstances. The best way to handle the petition would be to refer it to the Health and Community Care Committee to ascertain whether the latest decision was taken in line with the recommendations that that committee made a couple of years ago. We can keep Paul Martin, Janis Hughes and Brian Fitzpatrick informed of what we are doing, but it is for the Health and Community Care Committee to carry out that investigation, rather than the Public Petitions Committee. Dorothy-Grace Elder and I are both members of the Health and Community Care Committee.

Realistically, will the Health and Community Care Committee have time to consider the petition? I am happy to accept the recommendation if you can assure me that the petition will be given a fair hearing.

I think that it will. There has been some delay in the mental health legislation that was to come before the committee, so it is not as pressed for time as it has been.

In that case, I bow to your greater wisdom. However, I am still concerned that, as an elected body, we should not slavishly follow quangos.

Absolutely not. The Health and Community Care Committee is the relevant committee and I am sure that it will hold the health boards to account.

The health board is an agent of the Scottish Executive.

No. The health board's authority comes from the ministers who appoint the board members. The health board is accountable to the Parliament, through ministers.

I support the principle that the committee should not interfere with the executive decisions of local authorities—the principle is sound. However, we must question a little more in relation to the quangos that have proliferated across Scotland. They should be more under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

Is it agreed that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee?Members indicated agreement.