Chamber and committees

The report is the first step towards developing a new way to deliver such care, but it is partly predicated on having a support network in place so that its rationale can ultimately be justified. My concern is that the support network might not be in place. After you have reported, who is ultimately accountable for delivering on the report’s recommendations in order to make your rationale successful?

I think that that would be helpful, convener.

Everyone will agree that there is already a degree of centralisation, given that we are starting with eight specialist units. However, the concern is the rationale behind all this and how we ensure not just the best clinical outcomes but the best patient outcomes.

I am interested in cases in which, as a result of closures, families might have to live apart and in the impact that that might have. Last month, The Courier reported on the case of Lois Cathro, whose triplets were born at 32 weeks, and all under 4 pounds in weight, at Ninewells hospital in Dundee. They received excellent care, but Lois said:

“Had the unit not been there, we could have faced an unimaginable situation.”

Is it conceivable that parents and families might have to make round trips of hundreds of miles between hospitals just to see their babies? What impact might that have not just on their clinical care but on their overall wellbeing and, potentially, on future health and mental health outcomes?

Thank you.

I have a question about the cut-off point. Clearly, throughput was one of the criteria used, and I appreciate what you have said about Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, the difference in the scores between the units in Aberdeen and Glasgow is 17 and the difference between the units in Aberdeen and Dundee is 29—following that, there is a bit more of a drop-off.

I wonder about the case for Dundee and Wishaw in terms of the wider package beyond clinical outputs. Clearly, an ambulance can get from Wishaw to the Queen Elizabeth hospital quickly, but if you are a parent from Lanarkshire or the south of Scotland who is trying to visit your very sick child in Govan, you can be stuck for hours on the roads around Glasgow, whether you go via the M74 or M8. How was that taken into account in the overall findings?

Thanks for that answer, but you have highlighted, I suppose, the nub of the issue. It appears as though the arbitrary methodology behind closing units and reducing them down to three is almost setting mothers and very sick babies up to fail by building in that amount of travel from the outset. Huge swathes of Scotland, including the most deprived parts, will lose services if the closures go ahead. In your opinion, does this move need to be reconsidered?

I am not a clinician, but clearly there is already a degree of centralisation. At the moment, we have eight units, and perhaps the number should be five or six. I know that the Princess Royal maternity hospital is already in Glasgow, so I would presume that, in that case, the effect on parents will not be so severe. However, it seems to me that the proposed move down to three units boils down to finances, which is deeply concerning. Can you assuage those concerns in any way?

My amendments 174, 176, 179, 180 and 181 are on the measurement of targets. The bill says that the Scottish ministers must specify the manner in which indicators or progress made on the targets are to be measured. That is akin to someone marking their own homework and is not in alignment with other target-setting legislation. For example, section 2B of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 provides for target-setting criteria for the climate change targets. My package of amendments replicates the target-setting criteria in the 2009 act and applies them to the bill.

My amendment 182 entrusts the evaluation of progress towards meeting the targets to Environmental Standards Scotland and gives ESS the authority to evaluate whether targets have been met. That would require ESS to notify the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament of that evaluation, while retaining the provisions for the Scottish ministers’ accountability to the Scottish Parliament, as well as their ability to self-declare if a target is no longer achievable.

My amendment 188 would require the Scottish ministers to seek and have regard to the views of the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament with respect to targets or topics.

I will focus my remarks on my amendment 195 only. Amendment 195 is relatively simple and would make it explicit that any review or update to the documents listed in the amendment must have regard to each other.

Given the United Kingdom National Screening Committee’s planned review of evidence on population screening for sudden cardiac death, what role might the Scottish Government play in that regard? Moreover, what additional steps is the Scottish Government taking to improve data collection, classification and public reporting of sudden cardiac deaths, particularly in young people?

I fully agree with Mr Ewing, but it is a bit unfortunate that—as far as I can make out—the petitioner’s local authority did not respond. Perhaps the petitioner could take that up with local councillors.