Why won't Hospitals Inquiry investigate evidence put in front of it?

Prior to that I had written to NHSGG&C chief executive Jane Grant in 2018 after faulty cladding was discovered on the QEUH façade. I pointed out that the Brookfield’s bid stated that “the external wall cladding will be constructed from materials with a reaction to fire classification of B-s3, d2 or better”. But what was installed was cheaper, banned Class C cladding and insulation. That’s a clear breach of contract, if not worse.

She responded by saying that it would be up to the forthcoming inquiry to investigate such matters. This was despite the remit of the inquiry not yet having been set. However a month or so later NHSGG&C launched legal action against Brookfield and others alleging breach of contract in a number of areas. Curiously none of the many failings I had pointed out to her, including the above, were submitted as supporting evidence.

For my part I sent a large amount of evidence to the inquiry only to be advised that it will be up to counsel to decide whether it will even be considered. My aim was to demonstrate just how unsafe the building is even after remedial work. So why exclude it?

Can an inquiry really be deemed to be "inquisitorial" when it does not investigate evidence placed in front of it?

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.

READ MORE: It's in every worker's interest that the triple lock is watered down

READ MORE: Robertson and Swinney have brought shame on Scotland

Good luck to parents group

I WAS encouraged to read that Glasgow City Parents Group (GCPG) has managed to get itself into a position where it can take legal action against Glasgow City Council regarding potentially unlawful cuts to education services ("Parents taking council to court over education cuts", The Herald, August 14).

Presumably by coming together these parents have managed to raise a class action that can challenge the fact that local authorities all too often fail to fulfil legal obligations, secure in the knowledge that individuals simply do not have the resources or indeed the energy to make realistic challenges. Instead individuals are often directed to pages of spurious legislation guidance, charters, and information-only resources that cannot and do not get directly involved. In education and social policy legislation is important (even the more contemporary laws that are riddled with ambiguity) because without them our society would be in chaos. It is therefore imperative that in legislation that affects our children and most vulnerable that no one is in effect above the law and that even the smallest, weakest and poorest can be served justice in a fair and unbiased interpretation of these laws.

Currently if I challenge my local authority on failures relating to services for my disabled son, I am directed towards a "complaint" process that is ludicrously one-sided, where an investigation is carried out by a manager or service head of the service that is the subject of said complaint. In relation to my son and others I have represented, predictably the outcome will almost never uphold anything of substance in the complaint. This outcome is the final word on the matter from the local authority with the advice that you can go to the Ombudsman if you are still unhappy. I suspect only the driven few do so. The Ombudsman has a waiting list of several months and even then appears rather limited in what the office can do.

I recognise the dire financial situation that Scottish local authorities are in, but this cannot be used to override legal rights because an individual does not have the clout to mount a challenge.

I wish GCPG every success in standing up for all the children facing a potential miscarriage of justice.

Duncan F MacGillivray, Dunoon.

Theories on Stonehenge

THERE is apparent surprise that the altar stone at Stonehenge originated in the north of Scotland ("Stonehenge altar stone hails from Scotland", The Herald, August 15). But Orkney was an important site before Stonehenge existed and “kings” came for “religious” gatherings from all over Britain and Ireland.

We know that boats strong enough to transport people and cattle to Orkney in the Neolithic existed and substantial numbers of pigs were later taken by boat to Orkney for ceremonial slaughter. So I think the transporting of a sandstone block by sea from Caithness or Orkney may be difficult for us to grasp but was entirely feasible.

I would suggest the Scottish stone may have previously been part of a religious site just as the bluestones had once been a standing stone circle in Wales. Was a wider geographic contribution pertaining to the building of Stonehenge important to them, and were stones with a previous ceremonial existence sought after? How they transported any of these vast stones across an early Neolithic landscape is for more expert opinion.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Stonehenge (Image: PA)

Empty promises

I RECENTLY self-published a book on former world heavyweight boxing champion Ingemar Johansson.

I mailed a copy to a chap in Walsall last Thursday. The postman arrived at his house on Saturday morning with a torn-open empty envelope, apologising profusely.

I discovered the onus falls on me to replace the book and make a claim.

I used the Royal Mail online system, and inserted the tracking number, photograph of the proof of postage and all the other details you'd expect. At the final hurdle I got a message telling me I can't claim until 10 days have passed. I assume this is to allow for a late delivery?

So, my wee book is sitting there all alone in the back of a van or on a shelf, devoid of an envelope with nowhere to go (providing it wasn't nicked of course). Surely when a Royal Mail worker finds a torn-open empty envelope there must be an internal procedure to follow other than to embarrass their organisation by actually delivering it?

Jim Kirkwood, Kilmarnock.