Chamber and committees

Thank you very much. That has been a very constructive, engaging and helpful evidence session. Would you like to, in conclusion, mention anything that we have not touched on, or have we covered the ground?

Thank you very much. I hope that the session will allow us to advance quite a number of the petitions that cover issues that we have had the opportunity to air today.

With that, I suspend the meeting briefly.

11:06

Meeting suspended.

11:09

On resuming—

The next item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those joining us or watching online that we still have a considerable number of open petitions to consider before the dissolution of Parliament, following our final meeting in March. Therefore, our focus is very much on the issues on which we feel we can make progress in the time remaining, notwithstanding the hugely important issues that underpin many of the petitions that we have to consider. It will simply not be possible for us to advance, in the current session of Parliament, the work on many of the petitions that we still deem to be of considerable importance, and that may well require fresh petitions to be submitted in the next session of Parliament.

The petition that we are going to consider first, with due deference to one of our guests, who is currently outside in the hall, is PE2099, lodged by Lynne McRitchie, which seeks to stop the proposed centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland. Specifically, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the planned downgrading of established and high-performing specialist neonatal intensive care services across NHS Scotland from level 3 to level 2 and to commission an independent review of that decision in the light of contradictory expert opinions on centralising services.

We considered the petition on 10 December, just before the Christmas recess, and at that point we took considerable evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. During the evidence session, we covered a number of issues including capacity and resilience, engagement with families, funding and the importance of family-centred care.

The Scottish Government has provided follow-up information on the number of beds in the three units that will be intensive care units under the new model. The submission notes that the modelling work recommended additional beds in each unit: an additional 10 to 12 beds in Glasgow, four in Edinburgh and 1.5 in Aberdeen. I note, however, that those additional increases were anticipated in the plan and did not come about as a result of any further consideration arising from the airing of these issues in committee. I imagine, therefore, that the concerns of clinicians still stand, because they were aware of that potential increase in capacity, notwithstanding the concerns that they have about overall capacity.

The committee has received a new written submission from the petitioner. It highlights sections from “The Best Start Five-Year Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care 2017–2024 Report”, which emphasises the importance of family-centred care. The petitioner compares that with the Scottish Government’s focus on clinical decision making. She states:

“The Scottish Government continues to cherry-pick the information contained in the report … disregarding the”

parts of it that set out a vision of truly family-centred care. The submission also reiterates concerns about families not being listened to during the focus group sessions and in meetings with the Scottish Government.

Recess has taken place in the intervening period, but I know that our discussions with the minister on these matters are still fresh in our minds. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might now proceed?

You recently wrote to this committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in relation to a change of ministerial responsibility. It would be helpful for this committee to understand the process and the thinking behind that change in responsibility at this stage in the life of the parliamentary session.

Let us move on to the public consultation process for energy infrastructure. Maurice Golden will lead us with questions on that subject.

Our next item of business is an evidence session on Scotland’s Rural College. I welcome Garry Ross, national officer for higher education at the Educational Institute of Scotland; Jonnie Hall, deputy chief executive officer and director of policy at the National Farmers Union Scotland; Professor Wayne Powell, principal and chief executive of Scotland’s Rural College; and Jeroen van Herk, Unison steward at SRUC. Welcome to you all.

We will get straight into questions. I will start with you, Mr Hall, as probably the most seasoned committee witness in front of us. What should Scotland’s Rural College deliver and is it delivering?

Mr Ross, I put the same question to you.

Come on, Professor Powell. Are you telling me that the direction that SRUC has gone in in the past few years is contrary to your vision for it?

The comment that I was sharing with you was from earlier this morning, with witnesses saying that the management has taken high-risk decisions—and not just academic decisions, but decisions that show a neglect of other campuses. Do you recognise that?

We have received a lot of communication from the Elie and Earlsferry Community Council, and I know there has been some dialogue with it. What has happened with the breakdown in communication and trust? It is an important statutory body in the area that—