Chamber and committees

Every mother deserves to give birth feeling safe, supported and close to home. Willie Rennie made a pertinent point in his opening remarks, which is that we are talking about situations when things go wrong, and not about the vast majority of births, which are successful and go well, with mother, baby and family going home safely. However, that is the problem, because too many women in Scotland face the opposite of that—long journeys, understaffed wards, unit downgrades and a system that is stretched beyond limits.

The state of Scotland’s maternity and neonatal services is the result not of a sudden crisis or an increase in the number of births but of years of managed decline. Despite clear evidence, repeated warnings, localised campaigns and countless assurances from ministers, the Scottish Government has failed to address the serious inequalities and safety issues that new parents face in urban and rural settings.

The time for excuses has long passed. The best start plan set out an ambition to redesign maternity and neonatal services across Scotland. Its aim was to reduce separation of mothers and babies, provide care closer to home and support parental presence and involvement in neonatal care. Every single MSP in the chamber can get behind the principles of those goals, but, despite those good intentions, there have been significant failings in their delivery.

A survey that was published by Bliss Scotland found that, for every 10 babies who need overnight neonatal care, only one room is available for a parent to stay in with their newborn. That leaves parents with an impossible choice between finding accommodation close to the hospital, or leaving their baby overnight in the hospital because there is no option for them to stay with their child. That clearly contradicts the promise that is set out in the best start model, which states that parents and carers of those babies must—that is the important word—be supported to provide care alongside neonatal staff.

Last week, I raised that exact issue in the chamber, following the damning findings of the recent inspection of Edinburgh royal infirmary’s maternity unit, which many colleagues have mentioned this afternoon. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has confirmed that he will write to me on the issue, and I welcome that approach. However, I hope that the letter that I receive will provide a detailed explanation of how the Scottish Government will make urgent changes to ensure that beds are available for parents who want to stay with their vulnerable and sick babies. If babies are in the neonatal department, their parents will want to be nearby, and they need that support. I will not accept anything less from the Scottish Government. We should all be able to support that.

It is not just about overnight accommodation. As we have heard, across NHS Highland, more than 150 pregnant women have had to endure 210-mile round trips because consultant-led maternity services have been downgraded. We have just heard from Clare Haughey that, apparently, MSPs in the chamber are saying that departments are closing. They are not closing; they are being downgraded. That is not spreading misinformation; it is a clear fact. That is the case not just for MSPs who represent rural areas but for MSPs in urban settings.

Nobody has said that in the chamber this afternoon. I hope that MSPs understand that, if they say that things are closing when that is not the case, that will continue to spread misinformation, fear and alarm among our communities. That is not acceptable, and we should not tolerate it.

From MSPs who represent rural areas, we have heard harrowing stories of mothers giving birth at the side of the road and of mothers experiencing complications while trying to reach services in Inverness. Why should rural mums have to take on additional risks while in labour? Why has the Government failed to provide maternity services closer to home?

Downgrading has been the Government’s overall strategy. The decision to downgrade the neonatal intensive care unit at University hospital Wishaw is one of the most alarming examples of the Government’s failure to listen to families and local communities. The unit is nationally recognised and, as we have heard, is an award-winning centre that has saved the lives of some of the sickest and most premature babies in my region. Ministers insist that the decision is about saving lives, not saving money, but those are empty words that mean nothing to parents in my region, who face the prospect of their babies being moved to another neonatal department in the future. They will continue to campaign to stop the downgrade, and I will continue to back them every step of the way.

The best start plan promised that parents would not be separated from their babies, but, if a baby is moved from Lanarkshire to Aberdeen because of this downgrading exercise, that is exactly what will happen. The Government cannot continue to centralise care at the expense of communities. It needs to pause the plan, listen to families and staff who know the service best and commit to retaining Wishaw’s neonatal unit as a full intensive care facility. The minister also needs to explain how the Government intends to set up a new task force for maternity and neonatal departments while it continues with the removal and downgrading of services. It just does not make sense.

Every baby born in Scotland deserves the best start, and every parent deserves to be by their newborn’s side. The minister and the cabinet secretary have a tough job today in defending the indefensible, but we need to remember that the problem is of their creation. The centralisation of maternity and neonatal services must be paused, and an urgent national investigation must be agreed to. This is about outcomes. The Government cannot continue to fail mothers and babies, who deserve our support.

Will the member take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote does not seem to have registered. I would have voted no.

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing this important debate on bank closures.

Banks are more than just buildings; they are the focal point of our communities. The bank is where local businesses deposit their takings, where elderly residents manage their finances in person and where people can ask for advice or seek reassurance without resorting to an app or waiting in a frustrating telephone queue. In my region of Central Scotland, Bank of Scotland has announced the closure of branches in Bellshill, Larkhall and Grangemouth. I must declare an interest at this point, as I am a Bank of Scotland account holder and a customer of the Bellshill branch.

It is the perception of local people that banks are deciding on their behalf how customers should bank, and that is simply not acceptable. There are petitions under way across the region in an attempt to save those banks from closure in January 2026, and I urge residents in affected areas to look at those petitions and make their voices heard by signing them and opposing those closures.

Last Monday, I joined Councillor Richard Nelson, who organised a public meeting in the Larkhall area, to talk about how the community can work together to stop the closure. Banking hubs were mentioned, but it will come as no surprise to members in the chamber that, again, a banking hub for Larkhall has been refused.

I felt that the public meeting was very productive, and I note that the petition started by Councillor Nelson has already attracted more than 500 signatures. If Davy Russell would be so kind as to sign that petition and share it, we can work cross-party to stop the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in Larkhall. The petition shows the level of interest from local people in stopping the expansion of bank deserts across Lanarkshire and other areas.

One petitioner who signed the petition has commented publicly that,

“As a pensioner with a husband who has dementia it’s difficult enough to deal with daily life without having to travel further afield to use a bank or lift money. I live in Stonehouse and have to travel to Larkhall to use a bank and now you are going to close it, I and my husband have banked with you for over 65 years and I hope you will reconsider and keep this branch open or better still give us a banking hub in Stonehouse”.

That petitioner is absolutely bang on the money with the points that she has raised.

Another interesting point that was raised during the public meeting was the semi-rurality of the area when it comes to residents in Lanarkshire trying to use public transport to reach the next nearest town where a bank has not been earmarked for closure. Only 32 per cent of households in Ashgill and Netherburn, and 45 per cent in central Larkhall, are within a 10-minute walk of high-frequency public transport, so closing the Larkhall branch will increase travel barriers for people. In my view, few or no impact assessments have been carried out on deprivation, digital exclusion or proximity to the nearest local branch.

Councillor Nelson has since written to Lloyds Banking Group asking for the decision to be reviewed. I back his calls and will continue to work with him and the local community to overturn the decision.

Turning briefly to the bank closure in Bellshill, I note that Lanarkshire Law Estate Agents, a firm of estate agents and solicitors, has picked up the mantle and started a petition, which, again, has attracted well over 500 signatures. I put on the record my thanks to the firm for the work that it is doing on behalf of the Bellshill community.

I want to close on this point: banking groups will lose custom if they continue to close branches in areas, as people have had enough of being forced to go digital by going cashless. That is why I back the calls today from my colleague, Craig Hoy, in seeking to raise the issue of bank closures and the need to investigate solutions to ensure that Scotland does not become a banking desert.

Given that ministers approved an impact assessment that included only two accommodation providers operating below the VAT threshold and therefore failed to reflect the reality that is faced by small businesses, which make up the backbone of Scotland’s accommodation sector, does the Deputy First Minister at the very least accept that the current issues around introducing a flat-rate visitor levy could have been avoided if ministers had done their jobs properly and provided a robust, representative BRIA in the first place?

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the potential impact on businesses and the economy, what steps it is taking to ensure that business and regulatory impact assessments properly reflect the real-world impact of new policies on small and medium-sized enterprises. (S6O-05059)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that I, alongside other colleagues in the Parliament, have campaigned to stop the downgrading of Wishaw general’s neonatal department. The Scottish Government might wish to use the term “centralisation”, but the removal of specialist services from a neonatal department is downgrading. That is not misinformation—it is a fact.

I have also campaigned to secure overnight accommodation for parents of babies in neonatal wards, as there are not enough beds at present. That is another area in which the Scottish Government has not acted quickly enough.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the new task force will—as Jackie Baillie called for it to do—undertake a review of the best start model, with a view to having five specialist neonatal units as opposed to three? Can he give an update on the number of beds that are available for parents who need to stay with their babies in neonatal departments across Scotland?

I am sorry, but I had—

Finally, you have used the term “significant increase”? Could you give us an indication of what “significant” means in that context? “Significant” could mean different things to different people, so it would be helpful to get clarity on that.