Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is Mr Gibson aware that one of the post offices that are under threat and whose future is in question is in Queensgate, in the centre of Inverness, which forms part of the heart of Inverness and is essential for many senior citizens? The post office brings them into the town and brings life into the town. Does the member think that it might be better for the people in the Post Office to address the salaries that they pay themselves? The chief executive got £816,000 in 2021-22, which was down to a paltry £573,000 in 2022-23. Should they not start at the top if they want to save money?

Such is the chronic shortage of teaching staff in Nairn academy that it has had to close for many classes for many days. That is in danger of becoming not an occasional but an endemic problem in rural Scotland. The school and the authorities are obviously trying to fill the vacancies, but will the cabinet secretary consider truly creative measures to fix the situation, such as allowing supply staff who can choose where they wish to work? If they live in Inverness, they are not likely to go to Nairn because they get no travel expenses. Why would they go to a rural school?

For 25 years, constituents who have come from England and who are experienced teachers have been telling me that it is a bureaucratic nightmare to be able to teach in Scotland. Is it not time that the GDC was told by the elected people to allow qualified and excellent teachers from other parts of the world, especially England, to teach our children here?

I am now in the fifth decade of knowing Kenneth Gibson as a friend and, subsequently, as a colleague. Without wanting to butter him up, I can safely say that, having known hundreds, if not thousands, of public servants in elected positions, I have not come across any who work with such assiduousness and diligence as my friend Kenny. Younger members have an awful lot to learn from Mr Gibson—most of it useful.

The debate that we are having today is another example of that. Across a relatively sparsely attended chamber—there is no Green member to defend the post offices, which is a shame—a wide range of arguments has been expressed. I do not think that I should repeat them; rather, I will make a few additional points.

In my constituency, Queensgate is the beating heart of Inverness. Anyone who is familiar with Inverness will know that it is just opposite the Victorian market, whose clientele are largely senior citizens. For them, coming to the centre of Inverness, which is now a city, is a social experience as well as a visit to the post office. The bus services are right outside the post office, so those who do not have access to a car can easily attend the post office and then go and have a coffee or a drink with their friends or pick up something from the market. The post office brings a huge number of people into the town and is part of its social life.

That is where the post office differs from the banks. One can understand that banks have a commercial purpose and that they are commercial companies that are run for profit, but we thought that the post office was different. We thought that it was primarily a public service—but not now.

I want to make a different point. Carol Mochan made the point that the strategic review that was leaked on 13 November has not even been supplied to the CWU. I bet that the UK Government has it—that is the way that it works. The Government will have been given it, so why has it kept it a secret? It is a fair question to ask. It is a shame that there are no Labour front benchers here to enlighten us. If the UK Government has it, why has it kept it a secret? Is the UK Government now on the side of the Post Office bosses?

I will turn to the bosses. I have already said—but it is worth repeating—that Mr Read was paid £816,000 in 2021-2022. What I did not say was that £415,000 of that was a salary and the other £400,000 was bonuses. He paid back £54,000, which he said was the proportion attributable to the Post Office inquiry. Many, particularly those of us who are familiar with the Post Office’s serial injustice—the most serious, widespread, disgraceful and despicable injustice in modern times—would ask how he could take that amount of money home and save face. That is a complete mystery to me. In fact, the salary was apparently not enough for that gentleman, and another boss argued on his behalf that he should get even more. That is despicable. It is not only in this situation that such things happen. I believe that, in Scotland, there are more than 1,000 people in public service who are paid more than £100,000. That is one Scottish regiment that is unlikely to be disbanded any time soon.

Many members have made useful points about the additional services that post offices could provide. Rachael Hamilton, Audrey Nicoll and Bob Doris spoke about ways in which the Post Office could expand. Is it not time that it used a bit of imagination? Why not share offices with other services that the public need to access, such as law centres or citizens advice bureaux, which could and do have positions in other public service locations, such as hospitals? Why not seek out others to share the overheads and costs of a centralised building? Why not think out of the box? Why not offer a wider range of services, as others have said, particularly when the range of, and access to, banks and alternatives in city centre retail areas is shrinking in front of our eyes and city centres are dying on their feet?

I was pleased to make the decision to take part in the debate at somewhat short notice. Like Mr Gibson, I do my best to stand up for my constituents, although perhaps not with quite the same unremitting vigour that my friend Mr Gibson has displayed over several decades.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I thoroughly endorse what Liz Smith has said, and I appreciate the way in which she has said it. This is one of the most pressing problems in Scotland right now. Is she aware that, in Highland, one in three acute hospital beds at Raigmore hospital are believed to be occupied by people at the end of life? Highland Hospice believes that at least 40 per cent of those people could receive better care where they wish to be cared for—in their own homes, in the community. Frankly, Raigmore, which provides an excellent service to those who need to be fixed, is in danger of becoming a care home rather than an acute hospital.

Having met Kenny Steele recently, does Rhoda Grant agree that, although the Government works with all hospices throughout the country, Highland Hospice’s funding from the Government amounts to only 25 per cent—£2 million—of its £8 million running costs, whereas many other hospices are fully funded?

I commend Mr Sweeney on his excellent speech and agree with the points that he makes. Does he agree that we could organise the NHS much better, and that it could support Marie Curie, Macmillan Cancer Support nurses and hospices much more effectively and practically, at much less expense and far quicker for those who require end-of-life care? That can be done without necessarily increasing the overall amount of money that is provided, by getting the public sector to work more effectively with those marvellous charitable institutions in Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

Budgets should not just be about spending ever more, or indeed less, money; surely, they should be about achieving far greater value from every pound that is spent.

One in three of the acute beds in the Highlands are currently occupied by people who are at the end of their lives—I see the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care nodding. Highland Hospice reckons that 40 per cent of those people could, and should, be receiving palliative care by other means, normally at home, which is where most people wish to have it. Is the cabinet secretary, as I am, bothered, bemused and bewildered that NHS Highland is not collaborating far more effectively with bodies such as Highland Hospice, which can provide and arrange palliative care in the community far quicker, far cheaper and far better?

The statement has been met with white fury from my constituents, including long-standing SNP members, who are aware that the pledge is three decades old.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the report is flawed? It started off with a foregone conclusion. As far as I can see, the strategic business case does not contain a reference to the renewables opportunities in the north-east and Highlands over the next century, when we require safe, decent roads of the same standard as those in the central belt.

In the Jacobs analysis of 2022, by seven to one, those who responded—4,800 people—said that they wanted a dual carriageway. How many more consultations do we need before we accept the voice and verdict of the people in the north of Scotland? If we do not, how, in all good faith, can this be considered anything other than a presage to total betrayal?