Seòmar agus comataidhean

We brought the debate to the chamber to ensure that the voices of our communities are heard loud and clear. This is reckless decision making by the Government. Has the minister asked a single question on the research process? Has the minister asked why NHS Lanarkshire was not involved throughout the process?

I often question the Government’s political decision making. Its political priorities and decision making are often misplaced, which leads to significant errors in policies over which it has full control. The downgrading of neonatal services in University hospital Wishaw is one of its more significant errors to date. It is an award-winning neonatal unit situated in an area of high deprivation, and it serves a population to which it means a great deal. We heard from Jackie Baillie that, at a time when staffing levels are presented as a danger by our trade unions, the unit retains its staff. It works in an important area that it wants to continue to contribute to.

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union to discuss the impact of any reduction in budget and services on communities, including in the South Scotland region. (S6O-02531)

I absolutely agree with the member on that point. I will go back to what my colleague Monica Lennon said—make this decision make sense, because it makes no sense at all.

The service is being downgraded, which will result in newborns who require specialist care being transferred to one of three specialist neonatal units across Scotland, when they should be going to our best and award-winning neonatal unit. My colleague Mark Griffin gave us an insight into what it is like for families, and he mentioned the key point that the unit is needed every other week.

On behalf of my party, I say that we support those in the gallery and campaigners on this issue.

I hope that I can call on some of the back benchers from the Government parties—both the Green and the SNP members, and those who represent the area, in particular—to call on the Government to pause this, look at the evidence and give some transparency about what has happened. It is disappointing that members who represent constituencies in the area do not seek to ensure that the evidence is open and available for staff and families to look at.

We are told time and again that health services are best delivered when they are delivered locally in communities, and even more so in communities where there is already a lack of services or amenities or in communities with high levels of deprivation. That therefore begs the question: what is the Government thinking, and why is it not reversing the decision? The people of Lanarkshire and the area that is served by the unit deserve so much better. I can say categorically that we will continue to fight this. We need to ensure that the communities are heard.

It is disappointing, as usual, to read the SNP’s amendment to today’s motion. Yet again, it is about the SNP; it fails to recognise the importance of this issue and the importance to the community, and it fails to mention any of the concerns that these families and communities have.

The minister needs to meet staff, consultants and families from the area. Indeed, the minister needs to take some interventions from MSPs, particularly those who represent the area.

Despite what Collette Stevenson’s contribution indicated, one family with a newborn being forced to travel miles for care is one too many when they could get expert support in their own area. We have heard about the complications with stress, about the cost and about the way in which families will feel after the event. We must take those things into consideration and not dismiss them.

Members have outlined fully why they support the unit and the risk that is posed to premature babies if the change is made. We do not need to change things and have one thing instead of another; we can have both. That is clear from the debate.

Publish the evidence. Make it transparent. Make sure that we know what is actually happening.

The expertise on these wards is second to none. The community links are strong and the trust that is placed in the service that is provided is at the highest level. It would be a mistake to put any of that at risk.

In closing, I ask the minister to fully consult all of the population of the area and the MSPs in the area and to make all of the evidence transparent to us.

The reality is that our communities are being seriously let down by the major cuts to fire service budgets, which are putting lives at risk. Reports in local Ayrshire papers last week suggest that there is

“evidence that on at least two days last week, appliances from larger and smaller stations alike across the area were noted on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s own system as being unavailable for service because there are insufficient staff to operate them safely.”

The cuts are reducing the ability of firefighters to provide high-quality services. Our firefighters are standing against the cuts, as are the FBU and our communities. When will the Scottish Government listen and reverse these dangerous and damaging cuts?

Following on from the discussion that you have just had about preventative spend, one of my questions is whether enough is being done to achieve transformational change in the service, considering the financial instability that the health service is experiencing.

Do you mind if I come in? I really appreciate the information that you have given us. Given the financial pressures of the post-pandemic backlog, do you think that the potential transformation into a national care service can realistically be done with a single-year settlement, or do we need a multiyear settlement? Are there other things that we need to do to achieve that?

I want to ask one of the other witnesses about how the settlements happen. The boards are telling us that they foresee problems in meeting their current requirements. Would having a different approach be helpful?

I have a final question. Professor Ulph mentioned the use of technology.

Something that is repeatedly brought up with the committee is digital—our digital capacity, the ability to speak to each other and the investment that is needed. Is Government doing enough to support health boards with that?

Thank you very much.

As others have done, I take the opportunity to thank Gillian Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is a really important issue, as members have mentioned.

As we have heard today, there is willingness across the chamber to make progress on a response to the issue, with purpose. I therefore hope that the Government will outline soon how it will do that, and that it will consider using some Government time for a debate on the matter so that we can have a more in-depth discussion.

It is right that we talk of the serious environmental impacts of single-use vapes. They have created a throwaway culture, which, as we have heard, is damaging our environment and our efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

I will not restate all the effects that members have put across so well so far today, as I know that time is marching towards the start of the chamber’s afternoon sitting. I will, however, use a small amount of the time that we have to talk about something that has been mentioned, including in the motion; the concerningly high rate of use among our young people. Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland has said that single-use vapes are

“creating addiction among young people, including very young children in primary and lower secondary schools, where we haven’t seen much of an issue with tobacco.”

That is a really concerning statement.

The content of vapes is such that they are becoming addictive for people of an age at which tobacco addiction is generally unheard of. That has been exacerbated by the facts that the products are easy to access, are bright, colourful and catch the eye—as we have heard from other members—and, compared with similar products, can be cheap. That brings together the health and environmental impacts of single-use vapes.

I have been trying to ascertain the number of people presenting to hospital addiction services or other health services with complications that are linked to vaping. It has become very apparent that there might need to be some discussion between Government and the health boards to consider having a separate logging option for health concerns or complications relating to vapes, because it is really difficult to find out what the figures for that are. It would be useful for us to separate smoking from vapes, as other members have mentioned.

I know that we are tight for time, so I will conclude. It has been a very worthwhile debate, and there have been many reasonable suggestions from members of the various parties across the chamber. It is clear that we need to deal with the environmental impact. I look forward to the minister's contribution. I understand that we are having an environment debate and that she has responsibility for the environmental impacts. However—to pick up on Stephanie Callaghan’s point—I would like to know what the Government will do now and how we can work across the UK, because some commitments have been made by the UK Government. Will the minister work on a cross-portfolio basis to see whether there is something that we can do about recording the damage from and impacts of vaping and e-cigarettes, particularly in respect of single-use vapes?