Chamber and committees

My apologies, but I have only four minutes. I do not know why these debates are so short, but I do not have much time to speak.

The units for babies born with the highest risk will be based in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and they will be dedicated to the smallest babies facing the most significant health challenges, ensuring that they are born where they can readily access the specialist care and services that they need. Babies born before 27 weeks, weighing less than 800g or requiring complex life support will be supported at those locations.

The rationale for the change, which the best start report recommends, is the belief that focusing care for those high-risk infants in units with the capacity to treat a high volume of patients will ultimately yield safer outcomes. That is what is at debate here.

We have heard that people do not care, but I think that everybody in the debate cares about such things. The ultimate aim is to ensure that as many children as possible—especially the most vulnerable ones—are born safely. As parents, that is what we all want.

We have heard from the minister that the changes are in line with advice from expert clinicians. Dr Lesley Jackson, who is the clinical lead for the Scottish neonatal network, and Caroline Lee-Davey, who is the chief executive of Bliss, which is a charity that is designed to improve the care and treatment of babies born prematurely or who are sick, have both voiced their support for the change. They believe that reconfiguring our services can improve the quality of neonatal services in Scotland. I think that the Scottish Government has an obligation to do exactly that. The objective is to offer increased care to those babies who need it most, while ensuring that they can return to one of the excellent local neonatal units across the country, such as University hospital Wishaw, which I stress again will remain open.

The decision to reconfigure neonatal services is based on sound evidence and expert advice. However, we must ensure, as far as we can, as has been said, that we bring the local community along with us. We have to work collaboratively to deliver the new model of neonatal care effectively for newborns and their families.

First, I pay my respects to Mark Griffin’s description of his experience. I also acknowledge that he is the first speaker in the debate who lives in and is a representative for Lanarkshire, which I am not. However, I will relate my experience.

I have three children, the first of whom was born in the Simpson memorial maternity pavilion. When she was born, not that unusually, she was not breathing and was blue, but the very adept and experienced midwife quickly remedied that with a couple of flicks to the toes and a wee bit of oxygen up the nose. The point is that there was no panic, because that person had seen that happen so many times in the past.

I will contrast that with the birth of my two sons, who were born elsewhere, in a much smaller hospital. The birth of my first son was pretty straightforward. When my second was born, his mother haemorrhaged. I think that there was real panic on the part of the midwives who were there. They were not sure what to do. I overheard a conversation about whether they should get a doctor. I do not question their commitment, compassion or expertise; it was simply a case of their not having seen what was happening nearly as frequently as others might have.

My son was then released from hospital, despite the fact that he had two holes in his heart, which were undiagnosed at that point. We had to take him back, but he could not be seen at that hospital and we had to go through to Glasgow for care. That episode left me with the impression that the greater the throughput of unusual experiences the better, and the more specialist the care becomes.

The second hospital that my two sons were born in was very convenient for me, but I would pass that up for making sure that they had the best possible care and attention. I might be wrong, but that is what I consider is underlying the changes.

It is crucial to recognise that the neonatal unit at University hospital Wishaw will remain open and that no neonatal units are closing as part of the plans. University hospital Wishaw, Ninewells hospital and medical school in Dundee, the Princess Royal maternity hospital in Glasgow, Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy and University hospital Crosshouse near Kilmarnock will all continue to operate their neonatal units.

Of course, we are in a period of transition. In order to maximise the effectiveness of care to our newborns, the Scottish Government has opted to reconfigure the neonatal services that are on offer. It is doing so on the basis of expert advice, with a focus on providing the highest level of care in three specialist intensive care neonatal units.

The deadline has not passed yet. I am not aware of any probable issues. [Interruption.] I know that the Tories do not like it when they get criticised, and they start shouting.

The terms of the debate and the way that the Tories have dealt with it have been terrible. As ever, it is about attacking the SNP—[Interruption.]—and we will hear the Tories now start to shout, because they are hearing something that will conflict with their world view. To be honest, we can see where the constant negativity of the approach that they have taken has got them. They are at 14 per cent in the opinion polls, so many of them are not going to be here in the next parliamentary session. That approach does not work and the least that the Tories should be doing is constructively engaging. They do not serve those whom they say that they want to serve, including those in the public gallery, by taking the approach that they have taken.

The Tories are talking about an “existential threat” to the tourist industry. The tourist industry will still be here, and of course the scheme should be reviewed if there is an impact on the industry—[Interruption.] The Tories are all shouting again and I know that they do not like it, but I am not giving way.

The Tories could take a much more positive approach and genuinely try to change something for the better, rather than waiting, criticising and opposing everything that the Government proposes, but they do not, so they do not serve the people who have genuine concerns well.

I am reassured that the Government has taken on board the points that have been made to it by interest groups and individuals and has changed the proposals. It has given a long lead-in time, including a six-month hiatus in which further views were taken on board. That sounds to me like the way that a responsible Government should act, and it is for that reason that I will support the Government’s motion at decision time.

I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s final point, that the Government and others should listen to what has been said today.

I have found it very useful to listen to the points that have been made. In general—with one or two exceptions—it has been a constructive debate. If we add the points that have been raised today to the information that we have obtained from our mailboxes—and, in my case, from hearing from ministers prior to the debate about some of the issues in question—it is clear that genuine concerns have been raised by some of the people who will be affected, although not everybody. There seems to have been a notable paucity of people who have spoken up for guests and those who might have concerns about safety and other issues when they take a short-term let. Nevertheless, it is important that we hear the concerns, regardless of where they come from.

I have been interested to hear the points that have been made, including by some of my colleagues, about concerns that they or their constituents have. Given those concerns, I would want to find out whether there has been a reasonable lead-in time before the proposed scheme takes effect. That is the case—20 months have elapsed since the scheme was first agreed. I would want to know that a dialogue has taken place. That is the case—we heard from Kevin Stewart about some of the things that have changed since the initial proposals were made. That tells me not only that there has been a dialogue, but that the Government has listened. Although not all the changes that those who continue to have objections want to be made have been put into effect, a dialogue has been taking place and it is right that the Government has listened. To go back to my first point, the Government must commit to continuing that dialogue, and I am hearing that it intends to do that. It is very important that ministers listen.

In looking at my postbag, I must admit that most of the people who have got in touch with me have expressed concerns. By and large, those people are not from my constituency. Among the representations that I have received, I have had ones from people saying that they do not agree with the Government’s approach and think that it should go much further because of the effect that short-term lets are having in their neighbourhood. I have had other representations from organisations and individuals expressing concerns about the proposed scheme.

The debate started relatively reasonably. In his contribution, Willie Rennie recognised the good elements of the scheme, as well as mentioning some concerns. In speaking about the impact of second homes, he said in effect that he did not have a solution to that problem to put forward, perhaps because the debate is not about that. It is a very difficult situation to resolve, as we have heard from other members. Resolving it will involve getting competing interests together. The Government must do that, adjudicate on a way forward and then take action, and I think that that is what is happening in this case.

What we heard from the Labour Party seems like opportunism. We had a council leader saying that he wanted a break and, two days later, he said that he did not want a break. Scottish Labour is saying that it wants a decentralised scheme, whereas the Labour Party in Wales wants a national scheme. Therefore, Labour’s stance seems like opportunism. From the speeches that I heard, I do not understand what Labour wants to get from the scheme.

Turning to the Conservatives, we have seen it all before. We have had blanket condemnation, with the proposal being ruled out on the ground of “SNP bad”. The Conservatives do not want to listen and do not want to have anything to do with the scheme. It is the same stuff that we have seen for many years.

I am not aware of any relevant interests, although, in the interests of transparency, I should say that my partner is the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development.

I think that you are right—that would probably not come under divergence. However, I think that it would come under the efficient operation of an internal market.

I want to follow up on the question that Donald Cameron asked about the figures on Scottish exports. There are huge numbers of key figures relating to the economy that rely on pretty ropey survey data. That is true across the UK. In Scotland’s case, we often have to rely on the Department of Trade and Industry, or whatever it is now called, and HM Revenue and Customs for some of the figures.

It is true that, as Donald Cameron said, the figures are very woolly, which is really surprising for a so-called advanced economy in the 21st century. Is it your intention to see whether you can start to nail down those figures, not just in Scotland but across the UK?

I am new to this, but from listening to what has been said and in response to your point that we started off with a more unified situation, I suppose that the implication is that we are about to become less unified or experience more divergence. It seems a bit absurd to have started off in a single market and to now be moving to what appears, even in name, to be the more insular approach of an internal market. If it was a single market previously, surely the benefits were there in the first place. Do we need bureaucratic superstructures to regulate or monitor a situation where we previously had a single market? It seems odd that we would have to do that.