Seòmar agus comataidhean

The petitioners have made it very clear what the issues are. There is a huge distance to travel to access healthcare, and they are not being heard.

Let me give the example of maternity services in Caithness. I have been asking the health board for a risk assessment of the journey between Caithness and Inverness for someone who goes into labour early, for example. I know that there are people who are more likely to be induced or to have an elective caesarean, but there are people who go into labour and need to drive down that road. The road is horrendous in winter and can often be blocked.

As we were discussing before the meeting, expecting someone to drive down there with a partner who is in labour is unacceptable. It is an offence for someone to use a phone while driving a car. Imagine what it is like for a driver to have someone in active labour beside them while they are trying to concentrate on a really difficult, dangerous road. No one will risk assess that journey. I have asked the same question in relation to routes in Moray. I hope that the committee would at least request that a risk assessment is done on transporting people in emergency situations where there is no local healthcare.

When this situation started in Caithness, there was not enough ambulance cover. Quite often, if one person was being transported by that means, the area was left without an ambulance. That problem has been resolved to an extent, but the situation is still not ideal.

I support the petitioners’ argument that the healthcare service that they have received is not equitable.

I thank the committee for the huge amount of work that it has done on the issue and for all the evidence that it has taken. In some ways, you are responsible for our being in a much better position than we were when the petition was first lodged.

I have a bit of both, convener.

I will not go over ground that has been covered by the committee, apart from to say that I am pleased that Prospect and HIAL are working so well together and that staff are now involved in the working groups.

There is a level of distrust about why we have reached this point and what has brought us here, about which you answered a question at the beginning of the meeting. I suppose that the independent review in five years is what is causing people some concern. Is this just a pause? Will that review bring us back to where we once were?

First, how do you rebuild trust, not just with the workforce—I understand from you and Prospect that that work is on-going—but with the communities that you serve?

Okay. Thank you.

Radar for Shetland airport, which is the one airport that uses remote radar at the moment, was to transfer from NATS to HIAL, but there has been a delay. What are the reasons for that, and does it augur well for centralisation to Inverness of radar for the other airports?

Is there an option to have the radar controlled locally at the airports, which would create more jobs? That would almost be to go in the opposite direction of travel from what was happening previously. Using the recruitment approach that Liam McArthur talked about, local people might be recruited and trained. That would create more jobs in the local communities, where they are desperately needed.

However, you would not revisit that—you would not look at it again. I am conscious that that might be a way to rebuild trust and to reassure the communities that you want to work with them, too.

Amendment 26 would create an independent Scottish food commission that was totally independent of Government. The commission would assist in drawing up the good food nation plan and provide advice to ministers and other organisations. It would also have the ability to carry out research. It would operate similarly to the Scottish Land Commission, which we are all familiar with.

We all know that we have a human right to food, but that right has not been realised for many people. The commission would keep the Government and other bodies focused on that right and its realisation. It would also allow the Government to amend the remit of the commission to ensure that it remains relevant to the needs of our population.

Amendment 30 is a consequential amendment that would make the process subject to the affirmative procedure.

I support the other amendments in the group. All of them would work well with my amendments, albeit that they might require some tidying up at stage 3.

I move amendment 26.

I was somewhat concerned that, at the start of her summing up, the cabinet secretary seemed to say that she would speak to and work with the Greens according to the Bute house agreement to reach a settlement on this particular section. Latterly, though, she seemed to include the rest of us with an interest in this matter, and, before I decide whether to press or withdraw amendment 26, I am looking for a commitment from her that this will not be a stitch-up between her and the Greens and that she will try to reach consensus among all of us with an interest.

Amendments 3, 15, 17, 28 and 29 would require plans and revisions to be set out by regulation. Amendment 3 would require that for the first plan and amendment 15 would require it for revisions. Amendment 17 is a consequential amendment, because section 6(4) would no longer be required if the plan was set out in regulations, as all regulations are published and laid before the Parliament.

Amendments 28 and 29 are consequential amendments to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That would mean that plans and revisions were subject to scrutiny by the Parliament—in committee and in the chamber—and were voted on. It is only right for such plans to have parliamentary scrutiny and approval, if we are to put right our broken food system.

I move amendment 3.

The cabinet secretary said that the plans would be laid before the Parliament, but my amendments would allow the Parliament to vote on the plans—simply laying them before the Parliament does not allow that. She also pointed out that to have regard means simply that the Government can have regard to the issues that are raised and then ignore them. The only meaningful input that the Parliament can have is by voting on the plans, and I urge the committee to support amendment 3.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 40 would ensure wider consultation than just having a vote in the Parliament on the plans. I agree that the plans should be consulted on as widely as possible. I press amendment 3.