Stobhill Hospital
Item 3 on the agenda is a different style of petition. It is the Stobhill hospital petition, which we addressed at one of our previous meetings. Members will recall that, on 2 February, Dr Richard Simpson was appointed as the committee's reporter to examine this issue. Richard's substantial interim report was circulated to us only this morning, so committee members will not have had a chance to read it. However, I will ask Richard to speak to his report, to which we will return in coming weeks.
I thank the committee for giving me this task, which represents what the Parliament is about—addressing the genuine concerns of the public. In this case, we are dealing with an important issue for the community around Stobhill hospital.
I wish to dwell briefly on the process of petitions, which we have just discussed. We have to balance the need for speed, in order not to hold up important projects, with the opportunity for the public to give their opinions to this committee. I am conscious of the fact that, as the committee asked to have the interim report in two weeks, the public had only a short time in which to respond. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the report was announced in the committee only two weeks ago, and in the press five days after that, there has been a substantial response from the public in the form of letters.
I hope that members do not feel that I am hijacking the committee by mentioning this in a public meeting, but I feel that producing an interim report of this sort—which I have done to the best of my ability—is important. Detailed information that dates back over years has gone into this report, and it has not been possible for many of the respondents to check that information. An interim report gives them time to examine and correct the report's contents. I wish, therefore, to issue a caveat. The public, the health boards and all individuals who responded to me and took time to meet me face to face and talk to me over the telephone—amounting to almost 20 hours of contact—should have the opportunity to come back to me before I produce a final report for the committee.
I have not included conclusions or recommendations for the committee's consideration. I imagine that we will deal with that privately after Easter. That is another reason for putting the report into the public domain now; even though we have not drawn conclusions, people can see where we are heading.
At the risk of boring the committee—
Never.
Thank you.
It is important to outline briefly the history of NHS structures in relation to this issue. Before the early 1980s, boards consisted of 18 or so people, who were often broadly representative of the local community—trade unions and local authorities were represented as well as people who were appointed by the secretary of state. The Administration decided to change substantially the structure of boards to make them more like those of companies—that was how it was expressed in the debate at the time. The idea was that corporate running of the health service should be undertaken by a group of non-executives working with executives from within the system.
The system of broad representation and accountability was replaced by a company board structure. The consultation process—even the tacit consultation process—has been affected by that. I think that one of my recommendations will be that this committee debate the accountability of boards. That issue arose when we considered the Stracathro petition. We must examine how boards are accountable to the community as well as upwards, through the management executive, to the minister. The upward line of communication is clear and there is heavy responsibility—board chairmen are now held personally responsible.
The second matter that I addressed was the nature of consultation. As I visited the organisations that I have listed, I became aware that people's perception of the process of consultation varied. Part of the problem in this case derived from that. There is no clarity about consultation. As I say in the introduction to my report, the only guidance on consultation that the researchers or I could find was NHS circular No 1975 (GEN) 46, entitled "Closure and change of use of Health Service premises".
There is no requirement, beyond statutory planning procedures, for consultation about new buildings. Therefore, the answer to whether the board and trust boards have consulted is that they have consulted on new building far more widely than the current guidance requires them to. That is the legalistic answer that I will give at the end of my report. Whether that consultation is satisfactory is another question, which will be answered in due course.
This committee will have to debate the elements that make up the process of involving the community, either when it considers this report or later. We have to make the system accountable.
I will give one illustration of the problem. Many members of the public to whom I spoke or who wrote to me complained that it was stated that the public meetings that were conducted at the end of this process—between July and January—were about informing rather than consulting. However, the perception was that the public had some sort of veto over the process at those meetings. At many of the meetings, which were extremely well attended—there were 400 people at some, which indicates the public's anxiety—votes were taken at the end. Because those votes were substantially against the project, it was felt that the project would not be pursued. We must be clear that, in the heated atmosphere of such meetings, taking votes from those present is not helpful. It indicates the strength of feeling, and to that extent it is part of the consultation, but it is not a democratic vote because not all the public are represented.
Whatever else comes out of this report, we must achieve clarity of process. We also require clarity of understanding of that process and of the purpose of each element within it—the way in which we inform, engage and consult on NHS developments such as closures, changes and new building. We must also be clear about the roles of those participating in the process, of whom there is a long list. They include: the public, whom we all serve; the board non-executives; the board management; medical and non-medical staff, including the unions; the local authorities; the local authority officials, whom I list separately because, as members will see in my report, there are fracture lines between officials and the board managements; community councils; local health councils; voluntary organisations; patient-user groups; and other public services—in this instance the courts, prisons and police, which are mentioned in a number of the respondents' reports to me.
This is an extremely complicated case. It is not simply a matter of a building being built, a unit being closed or a change of use. This is about the whole concept of a hospital serving its district. The committee will be faced with similar problems as the acute services review proceeds. The resolution of that review will be one of the major political issues to confront us over the coming year.
The Stobhill case involves a particularly vulnerable group of patients. Unfortunately, in the public mind a stigma continues to be attached to mental illness. The problem is compounded by the fact that these patients have offended or have the potential to offend, which raises considerable concerns about public safety. As a society, we have learned about the damage that institutionalisation has done to patients with mental illness and learning disabilities. I feel very proud to be part of a system that has decided to support these vulnerable individuals in a much more fitting way, in our communities rather than in major institutions. That is the hallmark of a modern society in the 21st century. However, the siting of units in the community to support and help such patients is fraught with difficulty.
The primary care trust has kindly agreed to supply me, before the final report is written, with some of the history of units that have been placed in the communities of Glasgow over the years. Such units have often generated opposition, out of fear that mentally ill patients would cause people problems or that house values would be affected. I have also asked the trust to undertake the more difficult task of ascertaining whether, when it has succeeded in placing units in the community, the fears that communities expressed at the time were realised. I believe that we will find that they were not realised. The research evidence that I have read in the past and my experience as a psychiatrist indicate that such fears are based on stigma rather than reality. Mentally ill patients are often far better neighbours than people who are regarded as not having mental illness.
In the initial draft strategy—I will not go into the history that led up to that—Greater Glasgow Health Board was responding to the central Government view that mentally ill offenders should be managed in the community. There is a substantial amount of literature on that, which will not be included in my report. It seems that the consultation on the initial draft strategy, which came out in August 1997 and led to the concluding strategy in December 1997, was handled in an exemplary manner by Greater Glasgow Health Board. I have appended a list of those consulted; there was wide consultation and a record was kept of the views expressed by all the consultees, including community councils, individuals and other health boards.
As I have indicated in my report, the conclusion was that everybody agreed that Glasgow and the west of Scotland needed a medium secure unit. At that point we have no problem; everybody is agreed in theory, but where are we to place the unit? I am sure that the primary care trusts were aware—and a number of the respondents indicated this—that, although there was unanimous support for the strategy, there would be substantial problems when it came to a decision on the siting of the unit in a community. That is not saying anything that anyone involved did not believe.
I have not found any clear documented evidence of a discussion about the strategy for managing public fears proactively by informing, engaging and consulting. There has been information, there has been some engagement and there has been consultation, although it has been incomplete. The fact that there has been no published plan of that strategy—which has never been a requirement on boards—and no indication of a laid-out process of informing, engaging or consulting means that the public have believed that the board has responded to, rather than dealt with proactively, their requests for information and their fears. I cannot stress too much my belief that that is part of the reason why the community is considerably angered by the process that it has witnessed.
I said that the case was complex. It is complex because of the history of the Stobhill hospital and its service to the community. The hospital was run by a separate NHS trust until 1999. There is also a history of distrust in the local community about the long-term strategic goals for the hospital in the service of that community. That has not been helped by the process of rationalisation that the board has undertaken and will have to continue to undertake in relation to its estate and assets in the Glasgow area.
Greater Glasgow Health Board is the main authority, with two trusts initially operating on the same site in the Stobhill area. On the one hand there was the Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust, which is now part of the Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust, and on the other hand there was the Stobhill NHS Trust, which is now part of the North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust.
I have spelled that out in detail because it indicates the other problem—that the Government has undertaken a substantial change in the structures. That change has run alongside the development of the project. We must recognise that the personnel changes and shifts of the past two years have, at the least, not helped the process and may have made matters considerably more difficult.
There has not been consultation and cross-cutting between the two trusts at every level. There have been discussions at senior management level, but there has not been, until late in the process, effective discussion at doctor-doctor level, at nurse-nurse level or at other levels across the two clinical groups working on that site. As there was communication at the top, there should also have been communication down. I will say in my final report where I think fracture lines have occurred.
Some organisations said that they had been consulted throughout the process. For example, the Royal College of Nursing, which I was at last able to speak to yesterday, was happy with the process. It believed that members of staff were happy with the option appraisals that were undertaken. However, other organisations such as the medical staff association indicated that they felt excluded from the process of discussing the medium secure unit, but had been engaged in the process of discussing the ambulatory care and diagnostic unit. The process of consultation must be vertical and it must be across the community as well.
I will make three comments in conclusion. First, I reiterate my hope that everybody who has responded to me, and any groups who feel that they have not yet been consulted, will provide comments or corrections. I have stated that I have not yet talked to the local authorities, which are important players in this area. I have had a brief conversation with one councillor, but I need to have further conversations with local authorities and community councils, which are the formal representatives of the public. Given the period of two weeks that the convener indicated, I hope that by Thursday 17 February I will have received any further comments or corrections on the interim report, so that I can make my final report.
Secondly, I am glad to say that the committee made clear at the outset in my remit that the purpose of the report is not to indicate whether the medium secure unit should be placed at Stobhill hospital or anywhere else. That remains the responsibility of Greater Glasgow Health Board, which will have the difficulty of continuing with the process of achieving what has been unanimously agreed—a medium secure unit for the Glasgow area.
Thirdly, I thank all those who responded. People have gone out of their way to make time available to talk to me. Some people came to Edinburgh to talk to me in the evening. Without that co-operation I would not have been able to go into such depth. I apologise for the fact that I only tabled my report this morning. I hope that members appreciate that this has not been an easy process. I received pertinent comments and faxes until yesterday morning, when I handed the report in. We were still correcting some points at lunch time yesterday.
I put on record the committee's thanks to Richard Simpson for a substantial piece of work, even though it is only an interim report at this stage. Richard has applied himself to this task tenaciously from the day that he was given it. I repeat his thanks to those who contributed to the report. I hope that the committee will be able to contribute to the debate about Stobhill and, as Richard suggested, will be able to raise concerns and comments that the committee has discussed before, for example, in relation to Stracathro hospital.
Richard highlighted the fact that, before he produces the final report, he must speak to people in local authorities and community councils and give people who have made contributions the chance to make corrections. I believe that a representative of Greater Glasgow Health Board is going to the Public Petitions Committee next week. That may feature in Richard's final report as well. I suggest that the committee receive the final report in time for its meeting on 23 February.
Do members have any comments to make?
I echo the convener's thanks to Richard Simpson, who produced his report in a very short time. That was an enormous undertaking. It is clear from what Richard has said this morning that he is a real enthusiast for the health service and takes a strong personal interest in many health-related and medical matters.
Richard's contribution to our meeting this morning and the report that he has prepared will stand the Parliament and the committee system in good stead. They form a good example of what parliamentary committees should be doing and what can be achieved. We should not underestimate Richard's contribution to that process. A welcome aspect of Richard's work, which may be an example to others elsewhere, is that he has not sought to score party political points, but has approached the matter objectively. That will assist us in our deliberations.
A number of matters flow from what Richard said this morning. First, he reinforced the view that the people in the community need an early response from the committee. Paul Martin, who has done much work with that community, also needs an early response. The community and Paul deserve nothing less and I appreciate Richard's efforts in trying to facilitate that.
Broader issues are also emerging. Quite rightly, Richard spoke about the need for a clear decision-making process. At the very least, we must examine the systems, processes and procedures for making decisions in the health service. The committee has touched on that subject in previous meetings. That work will have to form part of our programme for the foreseeable future, because unless we get it right, we will face problems such as the situation at Stobhill time and time again. The Parliament can have an influence on the decision-making process and Richard was right to mention the need for problems in that process to be resolved.
Richard also mentioned the acute services review. The committee cannot end up considering petitions and complaints from every single facility and community in Scotland that is affected by that review but, on behalf of those facilities and communities, we can ensure that the processes that are in place are correct, open and responsive. We should not lose sight of that, and it should be a fairly immediate task for the committee.
Richard also touched on the accountability and structure of health boards, about which the committee has spoken on a number of occasions in relation to Stracathro and other issues. I do not know how we can add health board accountability and structure, which cannot be considered separately, to our work programme, but at some point we, on behalf of the Parliament, should initiate some discussion on those subjects, even if the Executive does not plan to do so. We must consider whether Scotland has the right system for the delivery of health care. If Richard's report does nothing else but help us to focus on our previous discussions on that matter, he, along with Paul Martin and others, will have done the people of Scotland a great service.
I do not know whether Richard plans to consider the consultation process in his final report, but I want to mention it today. Richard spoke about how consultation takes place and suggested that, in the case of Stobhill, the health board may have gone beyond the legal requirement but may not have satisfied the democratic aspirations of those who are recipients of, and live in close proximity to, the services. We must examine the consultation process and consider how it will work for facilities that serve a much wider community than the one that is immediately adjacent to them.
Stobhill is just one example of such a facility. Some people live in its immediate vicinity, but the facility will affect many communities in Glasgow and possibly beyond. This type of consultation process should avoid approaching one community at a time, in a piecemeal way, and should engage the wider community of recipients of services and care. We need to reconsider the way in which we engage with ordinary members of the public, recipients of the health service, trade unions and other beneficiaries throughout a wider area. I am not sure how that might be done. I would be interested in any comment that Richard Simpson might have to make on that.
I have written to every member of the committee, to compile a comprehensive view of local concerns. I hope that members will take in the points that I raised in my correspondence. I want to put on record my appreciation for Richard Simpson's work so far. He has gone out into local communities and has met representatives of local community groups. I look forward to the completion of his report.
I appreciate that we still have to consider the final report, but we must consider the fact that there was no statutory requirement on Greater Glasgow Health Board to consult the local community on the establishment of a medium secure unit. It is not acceptable to say that there is no statutory requirement for us to consult on the first medium secure unit in Scotland. There was no statutory requirement for this Parliament to set up the Cubie committee, but there was a requirement to consult local constituents on tuition fees. The same issue is raised in the establishment of the medium secure unit: a caring organisation such as a local health board should engage the public to ensure that their views are considered.
I want to make it clear that the meetings that took place were information meetings, not consultation meetings. That fact is made clear in my correspondence and in the documents that I have produced; it was also made clear to Richard Simpson by local people. The only consultation that was sought by the health board was via the statutory obligation through the planning process.
Richard mentioned the veto at the end of the meetings, when we asked for a vote from the members of the public. It would be unfair to say that the public thought that they were involved in vetoing a decision. What was asked for, at the end of each meeting, was a defined public view. At no point were any members of the public under the impression that they were voting for this particular proposal to be withdrawn or accepted. The vote at the end of each meeting was intended to define the view of the public who had attended that meeting.
It is part of the dynamics of a public meeting that, at the end, people want to quantify their view, whether they are for or against, and it is difficult to stand against that view. Having attended a public meeting a couple of weeks ago, at which the vote was something like 497:3, I know that feeling.
Can I finish, please? It is important to make the point that those meetings were arranged by local members of the public, who also led them. They were not intended for Richard Simpson to include in his final report. Hugh Henry mentioned accountability. The fact that these board members have decided not to go ahead with a public consultation exercise is the result of a lack of accountability. Because they are not accountable and have no electoral mandate, the members of the board have been able to approach this issue in an arrogant manner. This committee must reflect on that for the future.
I want to pick up on the accountability issue. What Richard Simpson has said this morning and what I have seen of Paul Martin's correspondence indicates that there are similarities between the situations at Stobhill and Stracathro. That in itself indicates that there is a fundamental problem. There is a drive to open things up and to make people accountable, but health boards and, to a certain extent, health trusts still have the barriers and barricades up. It is incumbent on us to draw the Executive's attention to that, which is why I have raised the matter in questions.
The issue of accountability must be addressed, because we are the people who will bear the brunt of whatever decision is taken by these groups of individuals who are, quite clearly, operating in isolation. In many instances, health boards are making decisions—I am not saying that Greater Glasgow Health Board is any different from the rest—that affect our constituents without even advising us as their elected representatives, never mind consulting us. We must indicate to the Scottish Executive that that is not acceptable. If we want to be open and accountable, that must apply to every organisation. If not, it will be the rock on which we perish.
It is unfortunate that this difficulty has arisen in respect of a medium secure unit, which is required in the west of Scotland. I accept that there is no statutory obligation on the health board to consult, but there is a moral obligation. Hugh Henry is correct when he says that we need to address that quickly.
I thank Richard Simpson, Paul Martin and others. I want to reiterate that these public meetings were called for by the public, Mr Martin and local councillors. Blessedly, there is no party politics involved here. We are all united behind the public.
This case shows once again that we need a statutory requirement to consult early in the day. We are too far down the line to rely on a carrot rather than a stick. Trusts and boards now have the mindset that they will act in the same way as private business, under so-called corporate confidentiality. They have forgotten that the NHS belongs to the people. The best way for us to restore the NHS to the people is to insist on early consultation, so that the people do not have to go to the time and expense of organising their own meetings. Everybody in Glasgow should have been consulted on this proposal.
There is a clash here between alleged national interest and definite local interest. The ambulatory care and diagnostic unit is being downgraded in budgetary terms, while the MSU has a large budget. The board has admitted that it is willing to spend £100,000 per patient per year. I would like to mention the Marie Curie hospice, which I visited last week. It is very close to Stobhill and dependent on Stobhill in many ways. The hospice was pinning its hopes on being able to rebuild its inadequate and, in parts, unsafe building. That indicates how much else locally is dependent on what happens at Stobhill.
I believe that proper local facilities, particularly mental health facilities of a kind that are non-threatening to the public, are desperately needed in the east end of Glasgow; yet that need is being swept aside in favour of this proposal. I detect the deadly hand of political correctitude, given that the board is willing to pay a large sum of money for a unit. I am afraid that the public has some right to be in fear of the type of patient who might be treated there.
I welcome Fiona McLeod to the committee.
Thank you for allowing me to speak, convener. I am a West of Scotland MSP and therefore Stobhill is not in my constituency. However, many of my constituents in Bishopbriggs, Kirkintilloch and elsewhere are patients and neighbours of Stobhill hospital.
I want to reiterate many of Paul Martin's comments and to commend the committee for picking up Richard Simpson's comments on the way in which the health service conducts consultation. It became clear from the public meetings that the public felt that it was not being consulted; rather, the public had to drag the health boards and the trust boards out to say what was going to happen in the community. A great degree of fear and, possibly, hostility was evident in many of the meetings, because of the negative start to the situation. It is commendable that the committee is going to examine that issue.
Dorothy-Grace Elder touched on the way in which new facilities within the health board are funded, which is an issue that I think should be examined. While the medium secure unit will be funded as a national priority, the ACAD is also a national priority. Only two years ago, Sir David Carter called for an ACAD pilot project and, within the past year, Sam Galbraith, as the local MP, supported Stobhill's bid to become the European leader in the field. Therefore, we hope that the ACAD will fulfil a national priority. We are looking at funding for two buildings on one site. One should not get priority funding over the other when both will meet national priorities.
As I represent the Highlands and Islands, I am afraid that I cannot speak about Stobhill with any great knowledge or experience. However, the situation at Stobhill is typical of situations elsewhere. I am delighted that both Richard Simpson and Hugh Henry have picked up the point that what is relevant to this situation is relevant elsewhere.
Hugh mentioned the acute services review. Unless clear guidelines are set down as a matter of urgency, I suspect that the committee will be inundated with petitions about lack of consultation and so on. While it is important to listen to the public, unless such guidelines are in place, petitions will set and hijack our agenda for the next few years.
We agreed to refer the Stracathro petitioners to the human resources strategy, "Towards a New Way of Working". Although I was not familiar with the document at the time, I agreed to that course of action; other members sounded so knowledgeable that I just signed up for it. However, I downloaded the document from the web page and really scrutinised it, but could find only a line or two on consultation. The ethos of the document was that one could not disagree with it. Certainly, there is no clarity on consultation within that document.
I repeat: clear guidelines should be introduced as soon as possible.
Basically, within the health service there is no culture of consultation per se, whether with the public or with staff. Much remains to be done on consultation.
I agree with Margaret Jamieson. It is fundamental that the committee accept that there is a crying need for a medium secure unit in the west of Scotland. We should certainly support the establishment of such a unit. I do not want to go down the road of comparing the cost of patient care in one section with the cost of patient care in another. My concern is that sufficient resources are invested to make all patient care effective. I do not think that all patient care is sufficiently resourced at present.
There is movement in the health service towards openness and transparency, but there is a long-standing culture of secrecy. We are aware of that from staff who call us to complain about something but are afraid to give their names. I agree with everyone who has spoken that we must break down that culture of secrecy. The health service belongs to, and should be accountable to, the public.
A question that intrigues me is whether the health board ever explained why it decided to place the unit at Stobhill.
Stobhill was selected through an option appraisal process. However, members will see from my correspondence that that process has been questioned. Also, I am on record as telling this committee that the so-called independent adviser was involved in a tender. As the adviser had tendered for the ACAD proposal and was asked to comment on that proposal at a later stage, I have questioned his independence.
The option appraisal process and the comments of the independent adviser resulted in the selection of Stobhill, but the issue that I have raised in correspondence—and hope to raise again when we have the final report—is that the way in which Stobhill was selected was not as open, transparent or accurate as it should have been. Another site might have been selected.
At the previous meeting of this committee that I attended I said that I supported the proposal to build a secure unit in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area. However, I believe that the option appraisal process was flawed and I am concerned that an independent adviser was paid about £750 a day, plus expenses—I have included details in the correspondence—to say that ACAD and the secure unit could be built on the same site.
I urge people to read about the matter, which is extremely complex. Paul Martin, the local MSP, made some good points about public perception, and I do not dispute much of what has been said. However, this is by no means the worst consultation process. I rate highly many aspects of what has been done by Greater Glasgow Health Board and the primary care trust—almost as models. The option appraisal process, which was gone through twice, engaged widely with officials from all the local councils, but what happened afterwards? The process also engaged with staff—the Royal College of Nursing and Unison were represented—but there was still staff unhappiness afterwards. The fracture lines are not easy to detect and should not be regarded as entirely the responsibility of the trust and the board. There must be balance, although that will be difficult to achieve.
I will comment on the public meetings, which have been mentioned twice. The second set of public meetings was undoubtedly called by public groups, which set the agenda. After the first option appraisal, there was an attempt to brief both the local MPs, one of whom accepted the invitation. The MP who did not accept the briefing suggested a public meeting instead, which the board agreed to have after consultation. Although the board perhaps did not consult as widely as one might have wanted, it did consult a number of community councils on the issue in meetings that it organised. Therefore, there is evidence that, if the public had not organised those meetings—
Paul Martin indicated disagreement.
Paul Martin may shake his head, but the historical record shows that the board went through a consultation process on the first option appraisal. The process was suspended after the events of September 1998. Therefore, it is unprovable to say that the board would not have consulted. However, it is a fact that the board did not consult and that the public organised the second set of meetings, which led to the public perception that the board had to be dragged to the meetings. I was not at any of the meetings, but my impression is that, because the meetings were quite heated, people were seen to be reacting arrogantly. The board probably felt under enormous pressure at the meetings.
However, those are items of detail. My report will eventually show that there was a consultation process of sorts. I doubt that, with hindsight, even the board and the trust would now say that they would have tackled the situation in the way that they did. I hope that their comments on my final report—or even the interim report—will indicate where things did not go right and will help the committee to devise a process to ensure that the situation is not repeated.
Consultation will not be cheap. The process of genuinely informing people about these matters, and of genuinely engaging and consulting them, will be expensive, and will have to be part of any development in the health service. If we believe in this process, we will have to fund it, which is a point that the Scottish Executive will have to take on board. Even the two option appraisal days, which involved 20-odd people and an independent facilitator, must have cost thousands of pounds. Although, as Paul Martin said, the option appraisal process was flawed, it engaged many officials from many communities. If they failed to represent the views of those communities, that is a problem with the system that we must examine.
The fact is that two option appraisals were undertaken on the sites. However, the people on the ACAD and Stobhill side were not engaged in the consultation on the medium secure unit, which caused another fracture line in the case. My final report and recommendations will clearly lay out those fracture lines. I should stress that, with the benefit of hindsight, I will attempt to be critical of the consultation process, because it was not perfect.
Thank you very much. I want to bring this item to a conclusion, but we will return to the issue on 23 February, when we will have Dr Simpson's final report. By that time, members of the health board will also have made representations to the Public Petitions Committee, and members of this committee will obviously be able to attend that meeting to hear them.
I have some factual information—
Perhaps you could circulate it to other members. We must move on.
If members have any comments on areas that they feel that I have not covered in the report, I would be grateful if they could e-mail me.
On 23 February, we will discuss Richard Simpson's report both as part of the agenda item on Stobhill hospital and as part of the committee's future work programme.