Chamber and committees

Is Donald Cameron aware that the one part of employment law that has been agreed to be devolved under the Smith convention deals with employment tribunals?

Perhaps if anybody has any thoughts on the following, they can write back to us.

Going back to Donald Cameron’s point and the Van Gogh exhibition that I mentioned earlier, I do not know enough about it—after all, it is probably the only art exhibition that I have been to—but it seems to have raised an awful lot of money, although I do not know who it raised money for. Can we learn anything from that approach? The exhibition probably used pieces of art from public collections. I wonder whether any thought can be given to that, as I think that it made a huge amount of money in Edinburgh alone, and it has now gone on to London and Manchester.

I also mentioned that I was in Edinburgh’s central library yesterday. It is holding an exhibition on witches—indeed, it sits right next to where most of the witches were killed in Edinburgh—but there was almost nobody in the building. Even post-festival, the streets are packed with tourists from everywhere, and I think that, with a little bit of advertising, you could get folk going in. Even the library part was almost empty. I think that you could have brought in folk who might also have been going to the library, and it could have been monetised, too. That might be anathema to some people, but any entrepreneurial ideas that might help the funding situation would be worth hearing, and I think that it would help the work of the committee—and would certainly help me—if anyone who had any such ideas were to send them in.

Thanks for the contributions so far. I spent two-and-a-half hours in Edinburgh central library yesterday, which means I spent more time in the library than at a Scottish Premiership game this week—that is unusual for me. For me—I am a new member of the committee—context is quite important here. India Divers made a point about the fact that we have seen eight councils go bankrupt south of the border, and there has been a 40 per cent reduction in funding to local government. The issue of assets being sold off in Wales was also mentioned. The idea that Scotland can be immune to that is a nonsense debate, as far as I am concerned.

Much of what has been said today has been said for at least 35 years. When I first joined local government in 1988, the same discussions were taking place, with words like “cliff-edge” and “crisis” being used. I think that, as Duncan Dornan said, we have seen continued managed decline in that period. In fact, it goes back to the mid-1970s when the Government had to go to the International Monetary Fund to get funding, but we have had managed decline in public services over that time, and 13 years of austerity does not help.

It is useful to understand the context. For example, Duncan Dornan’s submission says that there has been a 36 per cent decline in public library services between 2010-11 and 2020-21 and a 22 per cent real-terms decline in museums expenditure in the same period. It would be useful to know how that compares with the rest of the UK. The comparison is valid because the same funding underlies much of it. I would like to know where the Scottish Government is doing something good—I would not expect to get too much of that—or where it is doing something that is neglectful of or impinging on the cultural sector, which it could change. Liam Sinclair has made a couple of suggestions of potential ring-fencing and other things. I think that it is part of this committee’s role to reveal the context for what is going on and a feel for where the Scottish Government could improve or where it is doing well and it should do more of it. That is probably more relevant and useful to me in trying to get a handle on some of these things.

My point was not so much about a comparison, although it is interesting to hear about the different services, and it was not so much about, as Liam Sinclair said, a global economic situation. It was simply that, in Scotland, the budget is driven by what the Government in Westminster wants to spend on its services, and we get what we get as a consequence of that. What we need is not thought about; it is just about what we get as a consequence. There is vital difference between ourselves and Ireland and Australia, which is pretty obvious.

I will raise a question, although I am not looking for an answer to this, because I am aware that we are pressed for time. I was interested in the Van Gogh exhibition that happened last year in Edinburgh and which I think is going to other places now. I know that one of the issues was the cost, as a lot of people would not have been able to pay to get in. However, I wonder whether there is anything in that kind of initiative—a bespoke exhibition that travels around—that might be helpful to museums, given the treasures that they have.

I am not looking for an answer now, because I know that we have to move on, convener.

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 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.

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.

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.