Kenneth Roy
What a tape recording tells us

Unknown to me, someone took a pocket tape-recorder to the monthly meeting of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board earlier this week and recorded that part of the proceedings devoted to the Scottish Review's investigation of the Blawarthill land deal and the consequent withdrawal of funding from St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. We now have, not only the recording, but a verbatim transcript. This provides an intriguing insight into the workings of Scottish public life, the meaning of words, and the use of silence.
     The chairman, Andrew Robertson, introduced the subject with a short account of visits to several hospices. He then said: 'There have been various issues surrounding Scottish Review and John Bannon [the board member who has spoken openly of his concerns about the deal and about the withdrawal of funding] and I suspect Robert will cover that in his report'.
     But Mr Robertson was mistaken in this assumption. Either there was a misunderstanding between the chairman and the chief executive about what the latter would say in his report, or the chief executive, Robert Calderwood, simply decided to ignore the Scottish Review and John Bannon.
     Mr Calderwood began: 'I would like to start off with the Blawarthill and St Margaret's issue. As members will be aware there has been significant media interest in our plans for Blawarthill Hospital site redevelopment and the separate issue of the continuing care contract with St Margaret's. Over the last fortnight, we have fully responded to a number of media inquiries...'
     
I'm going to pause there and consider Robert Calderwood's assertion that the board has 'fully responded' to a number of media inquiries. As he should know, this is not a factual representation of recent events. The Scottish Review, instigator of the significant interest, put seven questions to the chairman (and his fellow ministerial appointees) on 27 January. If this was not a media inquiry, what is? I am a journalist; this is a current affairs magazine. Twenty-two days later, no one from the board has been in touch with the Scottish Review; we have had no answer to the seven questions. Indeed, it was a week before our letters were even circulated to the persons to whom they were addressed – we understand they were finally sent out on the day the cabinet secretary for health, Nicola Sturgeon, asked the board to give her a report on John Bannon's allegations of obstruction in the course of his duties. Unprompted by us, the Daily Record put the same seven questions and apparently received detailed replies.
     How, then, could Mr Calderwood, in only the third sentence of his statement, claim that the board has 'fully responded' when the response has been so demonstrably selective?
     In the second sentence, the chief executive stated that the plans for Blawarthill and the continuing care contract for St Margaret's Hospice were 'separate' issues. They are not in the least separate. Indeed they are inextricably connected, for it is the continuing care provision at the hospice which will now be awarded to a commercial outfit at the redeveloped Blawarthill Hospital. How could Mr Calderwood reasonably maintain otherwise?
     In the fourth sentence of his statement, the chief executive said that the board had 'provided a detailed report to the Scottish Government, Dr Kevin Woods' – presumably in response to Nicola Sturgeon's ministerial request. Dr Woods is a senior civil servant; his titles are chief executive of NHS Scotland and director-general for health. I am so dismayed by the second and third sentences of Mr Calderwood's statement that I took the precaution yesterday of emailing Kevin Woods with the results of the Scottish Review's investigation; it is important that the Scottish Government is – to borrow Mr Calderwood's word – 'fully' aware of what we have published so far. Dr Woods will also receive a copy of this editorial.
     Mr Calderwood then went on to say: 'The board remains committed to the hospice. Indeed, as the chair has alluded to, in relation to the palliative care review, that group met as recently as last week, where St Margaret's were in attendance with all the other hospice providers to discuss signing off a palliative care recommendation that will come to the board in the months ahead, in which they themselves have identified may provide additional services from St Margaret's but that is part of an ongoing planning process.'
     What meaning is this passage intended to convey? 'The board remains committed to the hospice' is clear enough, except that no one at the hospice is disposed to believe the undertaking. The board has been saying for more than two years that it is committed to the hospice. It wants to turn this state-of-the-art establishment, graded 'excellent' in every department by the Care Commission, into an old people's home; the board sees this as 'a commitment to the hospice'. What the board is really saying is that it is committed to the building which is at present being used as a hospice.
     The rest of the paragraph is less clear. A meeting did take place, although the hospice management derived little comfort or confidence from it. What are these 'additional services' hinted at by the chief executive? Is he suggesting that the hospice may be offered more palliative care beds? If he is suggesting this, why doesn't he say so? If he is not suggesting this, why doesn't he say what he is suggesting? As for the 'ongoing planning process', I am reminded of the Keynesian declaration that, in the long run, we are all dead – a saying which has the merit of being unambiguous in its terms.
     At the end of the chief executive's statement, the chairman said: 'I think Robert has very kindly set out the position and if there are further issues that people want to raise, they should do so now'.
     But the kindness of Robert, the utter clarity of his pronouncement, had left no questions or doubt in anyone's mind. From the assembled members, most of them ministerial appointees paid for by the taxpayer, there was utter silence.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about the astonishingly short five-year contract for continuing care beds at Blawarthill.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about why the plan for Blawarthill bears so little resemblance to the original plan which was the subject of public consultation.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about John Bannon's detailed allegations.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about Ross Finnie's statement: 'I have never understood why, if the board accepted the need for 30 care beds, it was insistent on those beds being provided by a new build at Blawarthill when such beds already existed at St Margaret's'.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about the Labour Party's commitment to restore funding to the hospice or the stated position of the party's health spokeswoman, Jackie Baillie, that there is room for continuing care provision both at Blawarthill and St Margaret's.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about the Conservatives' well-founded belief that relations between the hospice and the health board have irretrievably broken down and that a mediator should be appointed.

No one had anything to say, or ask, about anything. This is Scottish public life, 2010.