HM Prison Peterhead (Beacon Site Status)
The final item of business is Stewart Stevenson's motion S1M-2363, on HM Prison Peterhead and beacon site status.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament congratulates HM Prison Peterhead on becoming the first prison in Scotland to be awarded Beacon Site Status as part of the Modernising Government initiative and looks forward to the prison fulfilling its role under the scheme whereby it will share the secrets of its success with groups of visitors from across the United Kingdom and Scottish governments.
It is customary to congratulate members on securing time for members' debates. I invite those who are speaking today to desist in favour of those who are the subject of the debate. It is the staff at Peterhead prison who should be the focus of any plaudits that are on offer. Before I get to the meat of the debate I thank members of all seven political persuasions in the Parliament who put their signatures to the motion.
The treatment, as distinct from incarceration, of sex offenders is a comparatively new idea in the Prison Service. Such prisoners are universally despised for their crimes, not just outside in the community and by their victims and the victims' families, but by others who are held in our prisons. I intend to address the special qualities of the staff—who are all volunteers for the job of reforming serious sex offenders—and to describe their success in doing so. As the constituency member for Banff and Buchan, I do that with pride and in the hope that I might share in the reflected glory of others' achievements. It is more important, though, that I seek to show that Peterhead prison is genuinely a model of achievement of which the public services must be proud and of which private companies should be jealous. We can all learn from the prison's success. We must all understand the factors that created that success and we must nurture, develop and transplant the lessons for the good of all services for which we, as legislators, share responsibility.
The beacon award that was won by Peterhead prison and its staff is a rare and precious beast. Westminster's modernising Government initiative is the parent of that award scheme. Its objective is to identify excellence in public service and to create exemplars—beacons—that open the door to others. By doing that, the lessons of success are made available and standards are driven up in public services.
To date, only 39 beacons have been established in the United Kingdom, five of which are in Scotland. That excellence is a rare and precious thing. Peterhead will be opening its doors for the first time under the scheme in May, when 12 people will attend a course there. They will see the best in action, sharing their experiences and spreading excellence. "Raising standards by sharing excellence" is the motto of the beacon site scheme.
What are Peterhead's achievements and how did the staff make them happen? Peterhead used to be the hard man's prison—lock 'em up and forget 'em—and the staff were guards more than they were anything else. The opportunity for change arose when Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—in co-operation with the local MP, Alex Salmond—established Peterhead as the sex offenders unit for Scotland. That set in train a series of long-term changes for staff, for prisoners and for the local community, which are unprecedented in private companies and in the public sector, as I know from my business experience and from my more limited experience of the public sector.
After visiting Peterhead prison, the Cosgrove committee said:
"we saw evidence of committed work with convicted sex offenders … that staff at all levels were showing commitment to tackling various difficult issues, not least in delivering programmes".
I know from my visits to the prison that everyone from the governor to the cleaners understands their roles in the treatment and reprogramming of the sex offenders in the prison. For the first time, an environment has been created in which sex offenders feel sufficiently safe genuinely to confront the effects of their crimes. When they were held in other non-specialist prisons, or in units within such prisons, sex offenders feared for their own lives and did not consider those whose lives they had damaged.
The role of the community within which the prison operates cannot be ignored as a factor in the prison's success. Initial suspicion has given way to whole-hearted support. People in the community see people they know leaving for work at the prison and wearing their uniforms with pride. They have observed the operation of the prison over many years. Community trust cannot be earned quickly. The proposed location in Glasgow of a unit for recovering psychiatric patients has caused difficulties, but those difficulties could be as nothing compared with moving 300 sex offenders into a new community.
Some have mooted the idea that if Peterhead is not the answer, dispersal is. I say, "No." A return of prisoners to units all over Scotland is a guaranteed recipe for destroying the culture in Peterhead that has delivered success. Peterhead's total focus and total culture is absolutely necessary to underpinning the prison's achievements. The other day, I asked a Peterhead prison officer what makes him get up in the morning. His answer was simple and straightforward. He said, "If I can stop one child being harmed by one of our prisoners, I achieve what few others have the opportunity to do."
What have Peterhead staff actually achieved? The prison governor told the Justice 1 Committee on 13 November 2001:
"Since the programme commenced in 1993, it has had a total of 244 participants. One hundred and sixty-two of those prisoners have been liberated, 69 are still in custody, 173 prisoners completed the programme and 71 failed to finish it. Six have been reconvicted of a sexual offence and four have been recalled because of a breach of licence conditions."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 13 November 2001; c 2752.]
That compares with previous recidivism estimates, which showed that in excess of 60 per cent of those who are released reoffend within two years. The Peterhead programme has already rehabilitated 90 more sex offenders, who would probably have reoffended if not for the prison's efforts. The key benefit is that at least 90 families have been saved and 90 victims are unharmed; society has been protected by the prison system in a previously unattainable way.
Based on the Scottish Prison Service's target cost per prisoner of £32,000 per year, the system at Peterhead could also save the SPS about £12 million, which is what it would cost to lock up those who reoffend. Who cares? We all should because, by coincidence, the money that is required for redevelopment of the prison accommodation at Peterhead is about £12 million. Peterhead's cost per prisoner is well below the average SPS prisoner cost and it is reducing further in the face of rising costs for the SPS as a whole. Peterhead delivers quality management of outcomes for the community, the prisoners and our budgets.
Does such success in a public sector provider embarrass anyone? It should not. On Sunday, in a rather controversial speech in Cardiff, the Prime Minister said:
"We believe in strong public services".
He continued:
"Public services are what make us a community of people".
In his speech to Parliament as First Ministerial candidate, Jack McConnell said that Scotland needs
"public services that attract the efforts and work of the most talented".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4514.]
The beacon award to Peterhead comes on top of a string of other awards to the prison and its staff and international recognition from Professor Bill Marshall, who said:
"I consider the operation of Peterhead Prison, in so far as it affects the implementation of an effective sexual offender treatment program, to be exemplary and forward thinking. I strongly recommend that it be retained as Scotland's model sexual offender institution".
The First Minister said that he wants rehabilitation of offenders to prevent reoffending to be a key objective of his Administration. As a member of the Opposition, I am prepared to help him to do that if he is prepared to help Peterhead in fulfilling its role.
I ask the Deputy Minister for Justice three things. First, I ask him for his support for the motion, which should be easy. Secondly, I ask him to come rapidly to the conclusion that Peterhead is doing exceptionally well and that two years of study have turned up no reason for further delay in reinvestment. Thirdly, I ask for the uncertainty to end and for Peterhead's achievements to be rewarded. It is time to build on outstanding public sector success.
Stewart Stevenson asked us not to congratulate him on securing the motion, so I will not. I will say simply that I know that like his predecessor, Alex Salmond, he has a passion for Peterhead prison. I thought that it was only right that I should contribute to the debate. I apologise because I must leave shortly—I have another meeting to attend and I hope that Stewart does not take that the wrong way.
Despite Peterhead prison's Victorian conditions—it was built in 1888—it is a successful prison in the SPS estate. Stewart Stevenson is correct to give credit to the officers and staff, who have contributed to the high-profile work of the prison. Like many other prisons in the prisons estate, it is in desperate need of modernisation. The conditions are inhumane and unacceptable and they require urgent attention. That applies particularly to the continuing practice of slopping out. Peterhead cannot be considered independently of the rest of the estate, which is why members of both the Parliament's justice committees have pursued the matter for two years. They are anxious to hear the outcome of the prison estates review, which was ordered by Jim Wallace well over a year ago.
I realise that efficiency savings are redirected to good Executive projects, but I would like the minister to give a commitment that existing resources will stay within the estate so that the modernisation process can be completed.
Stewart Stevenson is right to be concerned about plans to relocate the STOP programme for sex offenders. The prison has a proud record of achievement in preventing reoffending. Given that fact, ministers should be cautious about upsetting that record and they must be sure about any relocation. However, there are practical difficulties in concentrating so many sex offenders at Peterhead. For example, many of the offenders are from the central belt, which can be a problem for their families. Consideration must be given to those difficulties in the prison estates review.
The Scottish Parliament takes a genuine interest in the treatment of prisoners, the fabric and physical condition of our prisons and the working conditions of prison officers. I believe that devolution has delivered for the Prison Service, because without it there would have been no scrutiny, no debate about Peterhead and no modernisation. There would have been no discussion of the needs of the prison staff and no proper appraisal of what kind of rehabilitation programmes there should be for prisoners within the Prison Service. It is one of the more successful examples of devolution having delivered.
I look forward to the real debate on the entire prison estate, so that we can consider not only Peterhead, but the estate as a whole.
We are a year on from the previous debate on the subject and still no decision has been made by the Executive or the SPS. What has happened in the past year, apart from the fact that the prison has won beacon site status? The staff have won admiration for their professionalism and dedication despite the uncertainty of their future, with the sword of Damocles hanging over them. That has been confirmed by the findings of the Cosgrove committee. The prison has been given international recognition for the STOP programme, which has been conducted—I cite letters from inmates that show this—with the support of the prisoners. That is an excellent comment on the culture in the prison. Why break up a successful team? Why risk the distribution of inmates around other prisons in which there is no resource and few skills to cope with such prisoners' particular problems. There is a high risk of unrest in other units. Why disrupt families and staff—a vital part of the community in Peterhead—and why risk the effect on local schools and, not least, the local economy?
The local economy has already been damaged by the loss of traditional industries and jobs. It has been hit by the running down of RAF Buchan, decreasing margins in fish processing and loss of jobs. Future effects of the decommissioning of fishing vessels have not yet hit the shore. The prison has a role in developing future specialist rehabilitation systems that are of world stature. It can educate other people all over the world in the successful application of the model of delivery that has been developed there over the years. I appeal to the minister, on behalf of the staff and their families, to sustain this centre of excellence—that is what Peterhead prison is, despite its fabric—and to restore their confidence in the future. The minister should remove the threat to continuation of the establishment and invest in a positive future for a world-class centre.
I ask the minister to work with his colleagues in the Cabinet to prevent a further attack on the beleaguered economy of Peterhead. If we recognise the prison as the world-class centre of excellence that it is, why throw it away? We in Scotland should invest in what we see as a major success. We should develop the specialist unit further.
We have had many members' debates that have been extremely important to the whole of Scotland and I consider this debate to be one of them. I make no apologies for congratulating Stewart Stevenson on securing the debate. I hope that the Executive will ensure that Peterhead prison has a long-term future so that its good work—which has been recognised by the central Government beacon scheme—can continue. Under the beacon scheme, Peterhead aims to be the centre of excellence in working with sex offenders, with a key objective of protecting the public and preventing crime. It would be a crying shame if the work that has been done at Peterhead in the past 10 years were lost because of a cost-cutting exercise.
Prison sentences are not about only punishment; they are about rehabilitation. That must be remembered in relation to all prisoners, but the work that is done at Peterhead is especially valuable to Scotland. The programme for sexual offenders at Peterhead is no easy option for those who choose to undertake it—they must admit to their crimes and face up to the damage that they have done to their victims. It can be a powerful and emotionally demanding experience for all those involved.
The programme is supported by a culture that extends throughout the prison; all staff receive training in working with sex offenders. That is more than merely a package that can be transported to another prison. The awarding of beacon site status to Peterhead prison proves that the work that is done there is essential.
However, Peterhead prison does not have the resources to offer the programme to all sex offenders. That is criminal. It means that those who have been sentenced to fewer than four years in prison receive no specific treatment relating to their offences. That is something that, I believe, the Executive has a duty to address. The best way that it can do that is through guaranteeing the long-term future of Peterhead prison and ensuring that, as well as continuing with the excellent work that is already done there, the prison can offer programmes to all offenders who are willing to take part.
As a fairly recent recruit to the Justice 1 Committee, I have not yet visited Peterhead prison, although I have visited three prisons in central Scotland. I look forward to visiting Peterhead soon.
It is clear from the information before us that Peterhead provides quite an exceptional service, and it has been recognised with the beacon award for part of its activities.
I hope that when the prison estates review is finally produced, the Executive will recognise that people are more important than lumps of concrete. It is a false economy to opt for the cheapest option in terms of bricks and mortar or concrete while ignoring the human element. We should build on our success. Where there is a good school, prison or hospital, we should encourage its work and foster it, and allow other people to learn from it. To close or break up a facility such as the sex offenders unit at Peterhead seems very short-sighted.
There may be financial problems associated with repairing, restoring, improving or rebuilding Peterhead prison near to its current site, but those issues have to be pursued. Any movement away from the current site or break-up of the unit will undoubtedly cause the service that is offered to deteriorate. Stewart Stevenson gave useful figures that show that if a good team that is delivering is kept together, money is quickly saved.
I hope that the Executive will take those factors into account when producing its prisons review. This is also an issue of spreading our governmental activities around Scotland. It would send the wrong message if we were to close down something at Peterhead and re-establish it in central Scotland—much as I would like more of my constituents to get jobs. Because of all those arguments, I think that we should continue to support Peterhead. I hope that the Government will be able to do so.
I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of Stewart Stevenson tonight. Donald Gorrie's point that a deterioration in service should be avoided is echoed by the foremost prisons expert in the world, Professor Bill Marshall from Canada. He has been visiting Peterhead over a considerable period. In a report, he said:
"Making Peterhead Prison an exclusively sexual offender institution shows that the Scottish Prison Service is one of the more innovative prison services in the world."
Professor Marshall said of the suggestion that the programme might be considered for closure:
"If this is done it will take a high quality governor and a devoted and fully supportive staff several years to achieve the standards operating at present in Peterhead Prison. This would be a retrograde step and would have to be supported by some very sound reasoning that is presently not at all apparent to me."
He gave Peterhead a ringing endorsement. He said:
"The very first thing I would … recommend is that Peterhead Prison remain the centre for the treatment of Scotland's long-term sexual offenders. The exemplary staff, the excellent treatment-supportive environment, the forward thinking administration, and the evident community support for Peterhead Prison's program, make any proposal to relocate these offenders remarkably like fixing something that is not broken."
He confirmed that
"Sexual offender treatment programs in prisons are very difficult to implement at all, let alone effectively. Peterhead Prison has achieved this and more. Their program should be seen as one of the examples of excellence implemented by the Scottish Prison Service and SPS should be duly proud of the achievements of Peterhead Prison."
The recognition of the excellence of the work of the prison officers is widespread. Peterhead has achieved the Investors in People award and was the first institution to be reaccredited for the same award. The STOP team also received the Butler Trust award, the presentation of which was attended by the Princess Royal. It has attained central Government beacon scheme status, the TNT modernising government partnership award 2001, the Scotland's Health at Work gold award and the Quality Scotland Foundation award for business excellence. The recognition of the excellence of its work comes not only from only a cross-section of MSPs, but from wholly objective independent organisations.
I wind up by saying that Peterhead has been a success of the Scottish Prison Service. There has been high quality of service and a reduction in the number of victims of assault as a result of the services given. The facts speak for themselves and that is important for the protection of the public.
The closure of the unit would be a leap into the dark, which would give rise to a loss of skilled staff and to uncertainty, if not a marked deterioration in the level of service. I hope that the minister will not turn his back on success for the sake of saving funds. If he does, I fear that the decision will come back to haunt him.
I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his first members' business debate and thank everyone else for their speeches on this important subject.
I represent Peterhead as part of the parliamentary region of North-East Scotland. I lived there for a number of years during the 1990s, so I know the value of the prison to the local community. Such an institution is an unfortunate necessity in our society, but the people of Peterhead are proud of the work that the local prison carries out, because it is a centre of excellence. The fact that we are having a second members' business debate on this subject testifies to the importance of the prison and its role in our society. However, two years after the first debate on this subject, there remains a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the prison—one of the reasons why I have returned to the subject. This debate is about trying to persuade the Government to remove that cloud of uncertainty.
As David Davidson said, the prison has an important economic role in the Buchan area. As has been said, RAF Buchan is losing jobs. Cleveland has closed in the town and Crosse and Blackwell closed a few years ago. The town of Peterhead is just about to feel the impact of fishing boat decommissioning.
We have heard time and again from the Government about the importance of dispersing civil service jobs throughout the country. It is important that we protect those public sector jobs that are in our more rural areas, such as Peterhead. However, we are not just talking about the economic value of the prison; we are talking about the fact that it has been awarded beacon status. Scotland has only five locations with such status. Responsibility for the other four in Scotland are reserved to Westminster, so Peterhead prison is the only location with beacon status that is a responsibility of this Parliament. We surely have a duty to protect that location and promote it. We should not be undermining the good work that the staff there are carrying out. The Executive needs to boost their morale by giving the prison a vote of confidence. It would be an act of social vandalism if we were to jeopardise the good work that has been carried out at Peterhead.
All contributors have referred to the STOP programme. It is an innovative programme. It is a process of challenge and confrontation that is presented to the inmates. It calls on the endless reserves of the staff at the prison. They should be rewarded for their patience and persistence by receiving a vote of confidence from the minister.
I refer to an article about the prison from The Press and Journal from approximately a year ago. Bill Rattray, the former governor of the prison said:
"We need to understand the motivation behind abusers' behaviour, the methods they use, everything. We are doing this by working with sex offenders. We are doing this to protect our children, to prevent crime and to make communities safer."
That sums up the importance of the prison.
More important, the article contains some quotes from the current chief inspector of prisons in Scotland, Clive Fairweather. He says:
"Of all the prisons in Scotland, Peterhead is the one which does more than any other to attempt to change people's behaviour through daily delivery of its programme …
When I first looked at the programme it had been running for a few years … I soon realised it was a comprehensive and painful confrontation process in which offenders gradually begin to understand the impact their crimes have had.
Above all, I have been very impressed by the way staff at Peterhead deliver this programme, day in, day out, to people the rest of society prefers to loathe."
Those quotes summarise the importance of ensuring that Peterhead has a future, so that it can help society. I urge the minister to back Stewart Stevenson's motion, to back the town of Peterhead and to back the hard work that the prison staff are doing, so that the prison can continue to make a very important contribution to our society.
I am delighted to support Stewart Stevenson's motion
"That the Parliament congratulates HM Prison Peterhead on becoming the first prison in Scotland to be awarded Beacon Site Status".
To paraphrase what Stewart said, it is good to be debating success in the public sector.
For as long as I can remember—I hasten to add that my memory does not extend back to 1888—Peterhead prison has been an important part of the north-east landscape. That is not just the case physically, as the prison is embedded in the life and work of the community. There has always been community pride in this significant national institution, which is based in our area and is discharging well all the responsibilities that have been placed on it.
Over the years, those responsibilities have changed considerably, mirroring developments and improvements in the way in which prisons are run and prisoners are dealt with. We are congratulating Peterhead prison not on a designation, but on the excellent work that it does. It has built up an holistic, co-ordinated and supportive way of working that involves every member of the team.
It is not possible to arrive at that situation easily or overnight. It takes commitment to an ideal, good leadership and sustained effort to put together what is happening at Peterhead prison. Other contributors to the debate have made well the case for the prison's retention. We should also commend the beacon mechanism, which helps other people to understand what lies behind and contributes to excellence.
I will end with a local expression that may be inaccurate in these days of central heating and may not be politically correct in environmental terms, but that is meant whole-heartedly: Peterhead prison, lang may yer lums reek.
I, too, will break Stewart Stevenson's rule and congratulate him on securing his first members' business debate. As Nora Radcliffe said, the debate is a celebration of the success of Peterhead.
I was slightly surprised that members did not say rather more about the prison estate. Only Pauline McNeill referred to that in detail. Peterhead prison was built in 1888 of shuttered concrete that is long past its sell-by date. There is no in-cell power and all prisoners have to slop out. The Parliament has made its views on the latter issue very clear.
Despite those physical surroundings, the staff of Peterhead prison have achieved something of considerable merit, which, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, has been recognised in many different ways. We have spent some money on the prison—on a new laundry, a new health centre, a new car park and other facilities. However, expensive maintenance is becoming a major difficulty. Whatever else happens, Peterhead prison as we know it, which was built originally to provide labour for the breakwater, will have to go. Restoring the prison is not practical.
There is no doubt that the Executive has some tough decisions to make. Because of that, we have delayed putting out the estates review to consultation. One of the tough decisions that we must make concerns the future of Peterhead prison.
Let me set out some of the facts about the prison. At the moment, there are 292 prisoners in Peterhead. We expect to have between 500 and 600 sex offenders. At the moment, 85 per cent of prisoners come from outwith the north. About 4 per cent of prisoners come from Highlands and 11 per cent come from the north-east, but the overwhelming majority of prisoners come from elsewhere in Scotland.
I recognise the validity of the figure quoted by the minister that 85 per cent of prisoners come from outside the area. However, is he aware that the great majority of sex offenders have offended against members of their families and that only 18 per cent of the offenders in Peterhead have expressed any concern about remoteness from their families? Indeed, that remoteness is to the advantage of their rehabilitation.
Stewart Stevenson's point is well made—I was about to make the same point. Many of those offenders are disconnected from their families and from their original social circumstances. In many instances, such disconnection may be appropriate, but there are a number of prisoners who wish to have family visits. We asked their families what problems they faced and why they did not visit, and found that a quarter of the families who wanted to visit did not do so because of the distance involved. The prisoners will be returned to the community and many will return to the central belt. Throughcare and care beyond prison are important and connection to those services will be important for those prisoners.
We are finding it difficult to recruit staff in Peterhead. The recruitment of specialists is one issue, but the recruitment of operational staff is also proving to be difficult.
Will the minister give way?
No, not at the moment—I want to develop this point a little further.
Peterhead is short of about 20 staff. A recent recruitment campaign achieved only two operational—not specialist—staff. David Davidson and Richard Lochhead spoke about the economic effects of any change in the situation. However, unemployment is 2.1 per cent in the city of Aberdeen and 1.7 per cent in Aberdeenshire. Although I acknowledge that there are important economic arguments about fish processing and other industries in the area, unemployment is substantially lower in the north-east than elsewhere.
The minister says that it is difficult to recruit new prison officers locally. Does he accept that a reason for that difficulty may be the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the prison's future?
Members are obviously listening closely to my speech—they are constantly anticipating my next remark. The delay in the estates review is regrettable, as it has created an overhang not just for staff in Peterhead but for staff in many other areas. I recently visited Barlinnie, where the staff's main concern was about when the Executive was going to reach a decision on the estates review. I hope that the review documents will be put out for consultation in the near future, but we must get them right.
I will move on to address the programmes in Peterhead, which are delivered by prison officers who are supported by social workers and psychologists. Some 31 offenders went through the STOP programme for sexual offenders last year, whereas 86 offenders went through all sorts of programmes. More offenders went through cognitive skills and anger management programmes, which are available throughout the Prison Service. Six offenders went through the new programme in Barlinnie—the STOP programme is being developed in prisons other than Peterhead. I say in response to Lord James's speech that the Executive believes that Professor Marshall's comment that the Prison Service should build on and develop the programme that is already in existence is important.
Some eight sites now provide the STOP programme, and we expect that work to develop further. Forty-two people provide the service in the central belt, of whom 16 are officers, while nine officers provide the service in Peterhead.
Will the minister give way?
I do not have time to give way. I may come back to Stewart Stevenson later.
Ian Gunn, who is the new governor of Peterhead prison, made it clear in his report to me that arguments continue around monoculture—in other words, having a homogeneous prison. For many sex offenders, the argument for a monoculture is clear: they feel secure and able to open up—I think that Stewart Stevenson made that point. Whatever we do, in whatever alternative provision we make and wherever we make that provision, it will be important that we create that security. The Cosgrove report will have an important impact.
Members mentioned Professor Bill Marshall and Clive Fairweather—everyone is agreed that the programmes that are offered in Peterhead are of substantial importance.
I totally accept that we will need to manage the change very sensitively. I think that it was Donald Gorrie who said that the issue is more about people than about fabric. We must examine carefully the management of any change that we undertake.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, the minister is in his final minute.
Alec Spencer, who is the Prison Service's director of rehabilitation and care, was the governor who introduced the sex offenders programme in Peterhead. At a meeting recently, I asked him how much damage transposing the programme elsewhere would create. His view is that it is possible to make that change, if it is managed sensitively. We will see. I accept what all members have said about that.
In conclusion, there is no doubt about the message that goes out from the whole of the Parliament. The fact that Peterhead prison has been awarded beacon status as part of a UK Government scheme, along with the fact that it reached the finals of the TNT modernising government partnership scheme the previous year, sends a clear message from the UK Government and the Executive—the staff at Peterhead are doing an enormously valuable job in difficult circumstances.
The value of what has been achieved must be protected. I pledge to try to ensure that the value of what has been created will be carried on within the Prison Service in whatever form we develop.
Meeting closed at 17:41.