Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has been a great debate. I say as a matter of record that I am always happy to engage with the cabinet secretary at any point, but it is fair to say that my constituents have been engaging since 2016 and they feel that nothing has really changed, that it is groundhog day and that they keep coming back to talk about the same thing.

For the record, it is not the methodology that matters—I entirely accept what the cabinet secretary has said about its being benchmarked against others. The reality is that it is the input data that matters. That is the issue before us, and we have been trying for more than eight years to get some sense in terms of the data that is processed using the methodology.

I also want to say a little bit about the legislative process, because I am always very much of the view that where there is a will there is always a way. This Parliament has introduced regulations from scratch in days—I point you to the regulations on cremations and burials, which affected my constituents directly. We have gone through stages 1, 2 and 3 of primary legislation in a day, dealing with bills whose actual evolution has taken less than a week. Taking the convener’s lead, I would suggest that you could amend the subordinate legislation; indeed, you could resubmit it tomorrow, having removed the contentious provisions and leaving in the provisions related to the Annan and other rivers. It is that easy. Therefore, I invite the committee to consider carefully what option it wishes to encourage the Government to follow.

Neither I nor others with an interest in Loch Lomond can speak to what is going on in other rivers, but, as Rhoda Grant has highlighted, 46 per cent of those consulted raised issues about the data. We cannot keep going on like this, year after year, having the same conversations, just because the data has not improved. We are not doing salmon conservation—or regeneration, for that matter—any good if we continue to lack the evidence to act.

Who knew that salmon protection and conservation could be so interesting?

The suggestion is, therefore, that the information on the number of owners—whether we call them owners or fisheries—is incomplete.

No, thank you.

Thank you, convener, and thank you for your kind words, which I hope will be sustained throughout the meeting.

The petitioners are calling for a public inquiry, born out of frustration at the on-going lack of progress. Discussion about the A83, never mind the petition, has been going on for years. It strikes me that, at this rate, the planning will take longer than the building. I and others look forward to the draft orders at the end of the year, but seeing is believing.

In May, Transport Scotland promised at the A83 task force meeting that a permanent fence would be constructed to protect the road from falling rocks and that the road would be returned to two-way use in the autumn. Clearly, autumn is a loose concept. We are now in November, and there is no fence or two-way road use. I could paper my office with emails advising that the old military road will be used because of bad weather.

The petitioners remain unconvinced that the best solution is being progressed in the short, medium or long term, and they feel that money is being wasted on activity that has not succeeded in opening the road to two-way traffic. They also point out that, at the most recent task force meeting, the cabinet secretary said that the Government was committed to funding the project. However, as you rightly pointed out, convener, Transport Scotland is nervous about the fact that decisions are made only on an annual basis and wonders about future commitment. Therefore, it would be helpful to know whether the Scottish Government is truly committed to the project. I invite the committee to keep the petition open until we are clear about that point.

I have a final comment. If rural Scotland is to thrive and survive, it needs infrastructure to avoid depopulation. Whether it is about ferries or roads, it seems that rural Scotland is being left behind.

I welcome John and Anne Urquhart to the public gallery; their presence shows the importance of the petition to the local community.

I have invited the committee to enjoy a sunny day at Loch Lomond to have a look at the situation. I cannot promise the sunshine just now, but I think that such a visit would be instructive. The offer of a guided tour is still very much on the table and would help to illustrate to the committee the damaging implications for the local and wider economy that the Scottish Government’s planned upgrade to the A82 would have.

As you have said, convener, the Scottish Government has reiterated its view that the STAG-compliant assessment has already been completed, but so much time has now passed between the costing and design work that the petitioners feel that the assessment is out of date and irrelevant.

There is a continuing feeling that Transport Scotland should carry out a full and proper STAG appraisal, but, at the very least, an update of its existing appraisal would be preferable. If Transport Scotland will not do that, the petitioners feel that the Parliament should conduct an inquiry into the issue.

Thank you very much, convener. Of course, since you previously considered the petition, the number of prostate cancer diagnoses in Scotland has increased. Although that is very welcome, some notable people in Scotland have had a diagnosis, including Sir Chris Hoy.

Not all men have symptoms in the early stages and they are often not diagnosed until much later on, so there is a need to do something. We know that catching symptoms early is key to increasing survival rates, and a screening programme would help to catch more diagnoses sooner rather than later. The Scottish Government says that it will consider recommendations made by the UK National Screening Committee. That is welcome, but it acknowledges that there is a duty to ensure that as many early cases of prostate cancer as possible are picked up in the intervening period.

I understand that the review of the Scottish cancer referral guidelines will include PSA testing and will be published in spring 2025. The cabinet secretary has written in support of prostate cancer screening to the UK National Screening Committee, which is still considering the matter and has yet to report on the review and further testing. However, given the seriousness of the condition and the need to do something and not wait, will the committee consider writing to the cabinet secretary to ask what the Scottish Government will do to improve diagnosis between now and when it gets information from the UK National Screening Committee?

If it will bring you out to the A82, I will promise sunshine for you, convener.

Thank you, convener. I do not know whether the collective noun is a suite of MSPs. I thought of a posse of MSPs, but I like your description even better: a galaxy of talent. We will settle for that, convener, thank you very much.

We are joined in the public gallery by Monica Sheen and Colleen Murphy, and by Alfie, who is probably the most well-behaved baby that I have ever seen. They have come specifically in support of this petition and they are joined in that support by many others who simply could not be here today. I also convey apologies from Mark Griffin. You will know that he has experience of the neonatal unit. He had another meeting, otherwise he would have been here today.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this petition. I am not sure whether this is the first time that there have been so many MSPs engaged in the same subject at committee, but it shows how important the issue is. The number of signatures collected on the public petition and the Scottish Parliament petition is also significant.

My colleagues and I will set out a number of reasons why the proposed downgrading of Wishaw neonatal unit is unsafe. As you have said, the rationale for downgrading Wishaw and keeping three units open in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen is set out in the Scottish Government’s demand and capacity modelling of NICU services. However, the data that was collected for that report on which these critical decisions are being made is, frankly, inconsistent. Different timeframes are used throughout: sometimes data taken over a year is compared to data taken over three years, and there is no rhyme nor reason to it. I understand that the exercise was rushed but it is so arbitrary.

The review that was initiated by the Scottish Government, which we welcomed, acknowledged that the data was flawed, but nothing has been done about it. Therefore, people are proceeding at pace to implement proposals that we know are based on flawed data. I find that astonishing, given that this Parliament and the Scottish Government assert that decisions are all evidence based. They appear to have fallen at the first hurdle here, and there is little wonder that people have very little confidence in the report and its implementation.

The report also fails to give consideration to maternity capacity. There is no analysis or consideration of workforce requirements. Although the report states that workforce data has been collected, the results of the analysis are not included. I have no idea why you would not put such a significant element into the report. I will come back to staffing in a minute.

In 2017, the Scottish Government published the “Best Start” report, which stated that three to five neonatal units should be developed, supported by something like 10 to 12 local and special care units. That is fine. Since then, however, the Government has simply fixated on developing only three. There is no explanation why the number is not five or four. It is our contention and the petitioner’s contention, based on the data and the volumes of people being cared for, that there should be four units in Scotland, and that Wishaw should be one of them.

Wishaw neonatal unit is the third busiest neonatal unit in Scotland. The critical mass of neonates exists within the central belt area. We know that Wishaw neonatal unit accepts the highest number of in-utero and out-of-utero babies, which clearly shows the skill set and the capability in the unit. There are transfers from other board areas all the time. Wishaw was named the best service in the UK last year, information that clearly has been ignored by the Scottish Government.

My colleagues will explain that there are real concerns from staff and patients that level 3 neonatal units in Glasgow and Edinburgh are already facing staffing pressures and will not be able to cope with demand once Wishaw is downgraded. I recently uncovered statistics that show that health boards across Scotland, in particular in the central belt, with the knowledge of the Scottish Government, have cut paediatric and maternity vacancies. Let me stress that the numbers are not frozen, they are not still there; they have simply been cut from the complement of what was required. I therefore worry about safety due to the lack of staff. The staff shortages will also add to pressure on neonatal services and force mums and premature babies to be transferred not to Glasgow or Edinburgh but to Aberdeen. We are talking about the very sickest babies, and just think about the distance that that would involve.

There is clearly appetite and scope for Wishaw neonatal unit to remain in place alongside units in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen as part of the best start strategy. I would be grateful if this committee would take this petition on—because I know that you have run with petitions before—and invite the minister or the cabinet secretary to explain why the Scottish Government is ignoring the evidence and putting at risk the safety of mothers and babies at Wishaw.

They were sounds of approval, convener.