Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given the position that the committee is in, as I have outlined, we will close the petition on that basis.

We are expecting petitioners to join us this morning on the centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland. I know that Jackie Baillie is joining us for that petition too, but I will hold off a little in the hope and expectation that the petitioners are able to join us.

Before I move on, I forgot to mention that in relation to the first continued petition that we considered this morning—PE1865—Katy Clark had hoped to join us but instead submitted a late written submission when she was unable to do so.

Not me personally. You make a number of salient and relevant points.

One of the parents whom we heard from in relation to the prospect of their baby being in Aberdeen said that the mother was left in a critical condition and was not going to be transferred with the baby, so what was he supposed to do? Was he supposed to stay with his wife, who was in a critical condition in Wishaw, or was he supposed to travel to Aberdeen, where the baby would be? He said that it would be a dreadful choice for any husband and father to have to make in those circumstances.

We suspend consideration of item 2 and resume item 1, which is continued petitions.

The final continued petition, for which we have been joined by the petitioners, is PE2099, which was lodged by Lynne McRitchie. The petition 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 last considered the petition on 11 September 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, and to undertake a visit to explore the issues raised in the petition. Since then, members of the committee have visited the neonatal intensive care unit at the University hospital Wishaw and have met the petitioner, families with experience of neonatal intensive care, Wishaw staff and NHS Lanarkshire staff. We thank those individuals who took the time to meet us. A tremendous number of people turned up; those of us in the committee who were present really valued the personal exchanges that we were able to have, not only with people who have been effected but with a considerable cohort of staff who also turned up to speak to us.

Hearing the perspectives and experiences of families with direct experience of neonatal care—some of which had happy outcomes and some less so, so it was a highly charged discussion—helped with our understanding of the issues raised in the petition. We are also grateful to the staff at NHS Lanarkshire and University hospital Wishaw for their work to arrange the visit, which was a first-class operational opportunity for us all. A note summarising the issues raised during the visit is available in the papers for today’s meeting and has been published on the petition’s website page.

Since we last considered the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has provided two written submissions. The first submission reiterates that the recommendation was based on evidence that outcomes, including survival, for the very smallest and sickest babies are best when they are cared for in units with high volume throughout and where there are collocated specialist services. The response states that the review team visited all 14 health boards and met teams from maternity and neonatal services. The Scottish Health Council led a programme of service user engagement across all national health service territorial boards in Scotland, which was supplemented with bespoke service user events. The submission states that more than 600 staff and 500 service users contributed to the review process.

The minister’s most recent written submission notes that, although the principles underpinning the changes are supported by the Scottish executive nurse directors group—SEND—and by the directors of midwifery, concerns were raised about the implications of the change for maternity services. The submission says:

“The Directors of Midwifery highlighted that additional data and evidence gathering was required for maternity services to inform maternity capacity implementation planning.”

It states that a national-level data collection is under way to understand the impact of the neonatal care remodelling on maternity services.

Bliss Scotland has provided a written submission that details its support for the new model of care and shares its view that the volume of babies born needing intensive care in Scotland is

“far too low to sustain more than three NICUs in Scotland.”

The submission shares concerns that

“progress is stalling”,

with a lack of clear communication about the task and finish groups’ priorities, work plan and progress to date. Bliss believes that

“Ongoing concerns regarding resourcing have not been addressed, including adequate staffing at the designated three intensive care units.”

I should say that there were issues raised in regard to Bliss by those who attended the visit that the committee held at the hospital.

Monica Lennon MSP is unable to attend the meeting this morning and has instead provided a written submission. The submission states that a

“truncated process amounts to tokenism, leaving families, clinicians, and local representatives feeling betrayed.”

Ms Lennon’s submission calls on the committee to consider recommending that an

“independent, multidisciplinary review be undertaken before Scottish Ministers reach a final decision”

regarding the future of neonatal intensive care services.

It is important to remember that the recommendation was not necessarily to have three NICUs; it was for a reduction in the number of service centres, and that it would have been perfectly possible for the award-winning unit to have been retained.

Meghan Gallacher had hoped to join us this morning for the consideration of the petition but was unable to do so. Jackie Baillie is still with us, and she would like to address the committee.

That would be great—it may have been one of the issues that was raised when we were on the visit. I cannot specifically remember whether we were given detailed information in support of that position, but perhaps, together with the clerks, we can establish what the situation is.

It is also important that we make it clear that the petition is about the downgrading of facilities, not the closure of facilities. That could cause additional alarm to people, but the core aspect of the ask of the petition is about sustaining the specialist units.

We are content to keep the petition open. There is some further information that we want and, in the time that is left to us, we will seek to hold a further evidence session with the minister and those who have been involved in the consideration of the recommendations, so that the committee can interrogate them and, potentially, make recommendations for the future. Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I briefly suspend the meeting.

PE2169, which was lodged by Hugh Mitchell Humphries on behalf of Scottish Friends of Palestine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to facilitate a review and upgrade of the teaching resource “Palestine and Israel, understanding the conflict” to assist understanding and debate in the security of classrooms.

The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the teaching resource is not a Scottish Government or Education Scotland resource. The submission states that it is owned by the EIS and is therefore a matter for the EIS to consider if, when and how it wishes to update the resource.

The petitioner states in his written submission:

“to use the issue of ownership of the resource as an excuse for rejecting the Petition is a red herring and untenable. When the Scottish Government gave the go-ahead for the formation of the original working group to produce a resource, in 2015, no contract of ownership was drawn up.”

The petitioner believes that with the current situation and political sensitivities around the topic of Israel-Palestine, local authorities and schools should be supported with a balanced resource.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

So, you support Mr Golden’s recommendations, Mr Ewing.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue and note that the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, and we also note the comments of colleagues. However, at this point, there is not anything that the petitions committee would be able to do to further advance the aims of the petition in the light of the submissions that we have received.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.