I think Lindsay's example highlights exactly the difficulty of the issue. If you go to a local hospital that doesn't have the provision you need—. You can take longer to get to somewhere, but it could actually be the right care. If you go to the wrong place, but it's nearer to where you are, it doesn't mean you'll get better outcomes. You need not just the right equipment; you need the right staff and you need the right service for that to happen. And I understand why people want that service to be available as locally as possible, but there is a reality of how many of those services you can maintain across the country and where they will be, and wherever they are, some people travel further to get them. But, actually, you're almost always better off going to the right place for your care, even if it takes a bit longer to get there, rather than having something done locally that doesn't actually provide the right care.
I think the example about the Grange and the Heath is exactly that. Where is the right place, not the nearest place? Where is the right place to go for the treatment to make sure someone has the best chance of recovery? And if you don't go to the right place, then you are likely to have more avoidable mortality and more avoidable disability, and that's at the heart of every difficult service change decision that has to be made.
I actually think, as a country, we need to make more choices, not fewer. We are building up a problem in the way our services are run, where we'll make it harder to deliver the right care for people, including when that hospital is no longer the right place for them and they need to move somewhere else. I think this is a good example of how all the emotion—understandable as it is—in the choice, could actually lead to holding up making the right choice. I do think that we're getting into something that is absolutely something that, if it's going to take place in a committee here, should be in the health committee.
And this is a choice where—. We appoint people to health boards to make these choices. And when we had the parliamentary review, and it was agreed on a cross-party basis at the start of the 2016 term, it was on the basis that we all understood we needed to find a way to make changes and that some services would need to go into more specialist care, but we needed to move more of that non-specialist care into a wider range of services. Everyone, in theory, agreed to that, and it's when it comes to practical challenges that it gets much more difficult.
So, again, whoever the next Cabinet Secretary or Cabinet Minister for health is, regardless of what the First Minister chooses the title to be, they will have choices to make, and they've got to be able to choose, and they've got to be able to then make sure those services are implemented. This committee, I think, has reached the end of where it can usefully add to the debate on this issue, but it won't stop, even if we want it to, and that is because people desperately care about the service they receive, where it is and the quality of it. But I don't think keeping the petition open will add more quality to that debate, because whether you live near Bronglais or Glangwili, or in Pembrokeshire or anywhere in north Wales, mid Wales or south Wales, this debate will carry on going, because we still haven't reached a point where we can make choices to deliver a better service in the time frame that all of you want it to be delivered in. And we're part of the answer and part of the problem, frankly. I can say that as I'm not standing again, but it's absolutely true.