Chamber and committees

My colleague Rhoda Grant was very supportive of the petition in the previous session, and I have been contacted to take it on.

I will be brief. There is an issue of principle here, in that somebody with a disability or who is neurodivergent might require extra time to facilitate a complaint. That is widely accepted, and the SPSO seems to have accepted it, because it is undertaking work on the issue. However, it is too early to tell whether the guidance will be sufficient. Therefore, the committee should keep the petition open and invite the ombudsman to give evidence in order to establish whether what the SPSO is doing will work and will provide the necessary safeguards for people who are neurodivergent and who wish to complain.

I agree whole-heartedly with Meghan Gallacher’s contribution. I am still in contact with Lynne McRitchie of the Wishaw neonatal warriors and with Lauren Bruce, who represents Ninewells parents.

So far, the debate has been characterised as being about lived experience, emotion and common sense versus the evidence. The Government is keen to say that all its changes are evidence based, so we spent a bit of time taking a deep dive into the evidence, and I make a challenge today, because the evidence does not support taking the reorganisation of neonatal intensive care units at level 3 to the level of centralisation that is proposed by the Government. We should remind ourselves that we would have fewer level 3 NICUs per capita than in England, and that has also to be combined with the geography of Scotland.

The evidence does not show that pre-term infants are more likely to be born in level 3 facilities, and it shows that transporting pre-term babies is dangerous. There is evidence to suggest that hospitals that hold level 3 NICUs are driving improved outcomes, but that needs to be set against the chances of survival for babies.

The argument that centralisation develops expertise and allows clinicians to maintain that expertise works for Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. However, the trade-off is that the level of benefit to babies in Wishaw and Ninewells is not acceptable, because the transportation means that those babies will have a lesser chance of survival.

The Scottish Government has recently shifted to using as its evidence base babies who are born at less than 27 weeks’ gestation. I am not surprised that it is doing that, but that accounts for only 40 to 50 babies born per year, whereas its written submission suggests that 100 very low birth weight babies would be considered as a suitable level in Scotland every year. There is, therefore, a real discrepancy in the figures. That becomes more interesting when looking at Bliss Scotland and Public Health Scotland figures, which show 850 to 1,100 level 3 admissions. None of it adds up, convener.

Most interesting of all is that Finland did a study of babies born at high, medium and low-volume hospitals and found little material difference in outcomes, so it did not go on to centralise. The evidence says something different from the Scottish Government’s interpretation.

On that basis, I invite the committee to consider the fact that an independent review of maternity and neonatal services is about to be conducted, to be led by Professor Christine McCourt. Its remit is not yet published, as far as I am aware, and there is no explicit consideration of neonatal services in level 3 NICUs. To be frank, given the patchy evidence, I hope that the committee will invite the independent review to look at the issue and, at the same time, keep the petition open.

I am happy to agree to that. Clare Adamson has made some helpful suggestions about producing a checklist. If that could be done, it would probably assist parliamentary staff immensely.

Welcome to the committee, Clare. I have one quick question. We should acknowledge that the secretariat is external and staffed by volunteers, so there is a responsibility on MSPs’ offices to ensure that they are supported. What learning would you take from your experience, and how would you ensure that your office is all over this in the future?

I am relaxed about either option.

I am relaxed about which option is pursued. I could be persuaded to go for either.

However, I want to clarify a point that I think is fundamental to the operation of the Parliament. Under the first bullet point of paragraph 14, as set out in annex B of paper 3, it says:

“with remote participation limited to exceptional circumstances where prior consent has been granted by the Presiding Officers.”

We pride ourselves on trying to be a family-friendly Parliament, and there are many members with caring responsibilities. I am sure that it is not intended that, on each occasion that a member may have to go home to deal with something and need to vote remotely, they are required to get permission first. Can we get clarity on that particular issue? I would not want the wrong signal to be sent.

10:15

This parliamentary session is unprecedented in that six political parties are represented on the bureau. Some parties are larger than others, and, in this session, setting up cross-party groups will require securing at least one member from each party. That will be particularly challenging for the smaller parties, placing the onus on them to field members for multiple groups; otherwise, those groups cannot be established.

I am inclined to agree with you, convener, that requiring CPG membership to be drawn from four of the six parties is not unreasonable and would be welcomed by those who engage in cross-party groups.

To bring a practical note to the discussion, cross-party groups have 120 days in which to set up, not including recess, so the clock is ticking. A number are already struggling, for two reasons. First, some members are saying that they want to wait to see what happens before volunteering to join cross-party groups, which reduces the pool. Secondly, we have placed a cap at 10, so, in reality, once members have committed to 10 cross-party groups, they cannot get involved in any others. They can, of course, attend them, but not as members.

We will also be interviewing all of the cross-party groups, if they are not simply repeats of previous ones, so we will have an opportunity to test how cross-party they are.

I would be very reluctant to require membership to be drawn from all six parties, because that would hand a veto to a particular party if it disagreed with a cross-party group’s topic. Much as I believe in consensus and working together, there are occasions when not everybody will agree, and that does not mean that the issue should not be highlighted. Therefore, I would absolutely reject the requirement being set at six. I am prepared to discuss my preference, but it cannot be six.

I suggest that we take items 4 and 5 in public. I accept that discussions of the work programme are usually held in private before the work programme is made public. However, I think that we as a committee should, where possible, operate with the presumption that we will do things in public, while, obviously, absenting those areas that are clearly sensitive. We should start as we mean to carry on; therefore, I move that we keep items 4 and 5 in public.

I have no relevant interests to declare. I refer people to my entry in the register of members’ interests.