Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is interesting. Perhaps it is just me, but I have numerous examples of FOI requests not being responded to within the time limit, even those that I have had to appeal. Even a simple question such as, “When will vessels 801 and 802 be delivered?” has been left unanswered for more than four weeks. Surely a Government minister with their finger on the pulse should know the answer to that. Will the minister undertake to look at the 14 per cent of FOI requests that did not make the cut and find out why they did not?

To ask the First Minister when construction of the national treatment centres, which are due to open this year, is completed, whether they will have sufficient staff to begin tackling the Scotland-wide patient backlog. (S6F-00908)

The First Minister’s comments about Inverness are interesting, because the plan was announced in 2015, giving us ample time for training. So far, NHS Highland has secured about 25 per cent of its team—65 people, 20 of whom come from its own resources—leaving only about 200 to find. Does the First Minister agree that NHS Highland’s staffing problems for its national treatment centres could have been answered by establishing a medical school in the Highlands, for which I have been calling for years?

Minister, I look forward to our meeting next week to discuss the issue. The access code is nearly 20 years old and, given the huge demands on the countryside, which became even more apparent during the pandemic, is it not time for an update and relaunch?

In 2015, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity said that 21st century fisheries management needs 21st century tools. In 2016, the Scottish Government promised new legislation to address that point. Unfortunately, nothing has happened since.

We clearly need an inshore fisheries bill, which both Richard Lochhead and Fergus Ewing promised before they were sacked. Will the cabinet secretary deliver where they failed?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I look forward to you notifying members when you have given blood, because that is the proof of the pudding and the need is for people to do it.

I congratulate Fulton MacGregor on securing the debate, which is important. I also congratulate him on his donations to date. I look forward to seeing him wearing the much-cherished silver 25-donation badge and perhaps go on to get the gold badge and emerald badge, which we should all aspire to do if we can.

It is right that we celebrate and recognise the pioneering efforts of the people who established the means of blood transfusion, which has gone on to save countless lives. As Fulton MacGregor said, the first successful human blood transfusion took place in Edinburgh in, I think, 1818. The first blood transfusion service was also established in Edinburgh in 1930. I struggle to imagine what it was like in those early transfusion days, when I suspect that there was no comfy bed or tea and biscuits afterwards. Let us be honest: I also suspect that the extraction methods could be described—[Inaudible.]—than the wee scratch, or whatever the current euphemism is, that we are told it is today.

In the early days, the service relied on an emergency panel of donors who came forward at times of a particular patient’s need. That is not dissimilar to how I gave my first donation. As a soldier, I was ordered to attend a donation event. That great, if perhaps illegal, order led me to become a donor for as long as I am medically fit. Clearly, the service was nothing like it is today, with volunteer donations of blood being provided regularly at transfusion centres and mobile units throughout Scotland.

As the medical service progressed and operations became more complex, there was a need for far more national co-ordination across the United Kingdom. That co-operation by all four nations of the United Kingdom remains critical. At the time of devolution, the UK blood transfusion forum was established. It establishes a unity of purpose across the four nations, and it recognises that it is vital for all UK nations to ensure a good quality of supply and that the blood supplies are safe and available for all.

This country has a proud story to tell when it comes to developing blood transfusion services. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the number of blood donations in Scotland has fallen to the lowest level at any point this century. As Fulton MacGregor said, we should never forget that many patients owe their lives to the people who donate blood, but there were 13,000 fewer donations last year.

I also believe that blood supplies have dropped significantly. There is only six days’ supply of the rarest blood—[Inaudible.]—which is of concern, as that is the absolute minimum that is required to meet patient needs across Scotland.

As Fulton MacGregor said, we need to encourage more donations. It is a simple and painless process. Indeed, it is also therapeutic, because when we give blood, we are giving someone else life that, without that blood, they would be denied. In the 20 minutes that it takes to donate, we are giving a gift that is beyond monetary value. It is perhaps one of the most generous gifts that we can give in our lives.

Giving blood is a very simple act of generosity that can truly save lives. As that generosity is needed now more than ever, I whole-heartedly support the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service’s appeal for more donors to come forward, and I encourage everyone who can do so to give blood. Who knows? Our own lives might one day rely on the gift of blood that a donor has generously given.

Before the Covid pandemic, about 2,000 people in the NHS Highland area were waiting for orthopaedic treatment. That figure is now closer to 2,800 and the projected waiting time for new patients is six years. With the national treatment centre for Inverness not yet built and staff recruitment looking increasingly difficult, what urgent actions can be taken during the pandemic to reduce those long waiting times?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In a debate last week, I asked whether I could make an intervention virtually. It is not by choice but by necessity that I am participating virtually. I have notified the Presiding Officers that I feel marginalised, because I cannot intervene in debates.

I have now trawled through the minutes of Parliamentary Bureau meetings to try to identify where it was agreed that members who are participating virtually would not be able to intervene or take interventions in debates. I can find no reference to it. Presiding Officer, I ask you to guide me to the correct minute so that I can see where it has been agreed that members who are participating virtually cannot make interventions or join in debates if they are not making a speech. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to give the “wind up” speech, as you call it. Let us see if I can do just that.

I welcome today’s debate and have listened to all members’ speeches with huge interest. Let us be clear: we have a huge impact on our constituents with the work that we do in Parliament. However, the Scottish Parliament is 22 years of age, and I do not believe that it is wearing well.

The Parliament prides itself on being a modern Parliament, but it is clear that we are poorly served by our broadcast information technology and by the protocols that go with it. I remember raising this very issue as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in 2017. We held virtual meetings in the bowels of the Parliament building, because there was only one screen and one room that could do it. I sometimes wondered whether tin cans and a piece of string would have been a better option.

The pandemic has forced us to focus our minds on resolving such issues, but progress has been painfully slow. Parliament saying continually that we have a robust system and that it has everything in hand does not work for me. Although Parliament can go virtual, when I deliver a virtual speech—as I am doing now—all I see on my screen is myself. I can see part of the chamber, but I cannot see a clock, and there is no way of taking interventions. Indeed, I tried to make an intervention in this debate, but I was refused. I would like nothing more than to allow interventions on my speeches.

All that leads to sterile lectures, not debate. Take my word for it: I have been virtual for all of this term since September, but not through personal choice and it has been pretty rubbish. I have contributed as fully as I could to Parliament. The sterile lecture is now the norm for the chamber, I fear. Having four-minute speeches, with many members not taking interventions, kills debates. That is why the majority of people in Scotland are not tuning in to watch Parliament. Who can blame them?

When it comes to questions—I am not talking about the patsy questions that are asked by Government party back benchers—who ever gets a real answer? Presiding Officer, I believe that it should fall totally within the remit of your office to resolve that. I implore Parliament to drive forward on the matter. Questions need answers, not political statements.

I remind Parliament that it is not just the Irish Parliament that sets time limits; so does the Canadian Parliament—[Inaudible.]—think more about that and set time limits on questions and answers.

I believe that although Parliament continues to function during the pandemic, it is a pale imitation of the real thing. I can say that, having not been there since September. I do not think that it is good for democracy and accountability to do everything remotely. We need more accountability, we need people in the building, and we need to be able to talk to one other—and not just across the chamber.

We also need strong and effective committees. Having been a convener in the previous session, it is my experience that a committee functions at its best when party politics are left at the door. I was sorely disappointed on the many occasions when that did not happen.

I will give members a perfect example. When the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee considered the bill that became the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, an SNP committee member publicly spoke out, in the months preceding the vote on it, about the introduction of a workplace parking levy. The next month, when the vote came along, he caved in as a result of party pressure and voted with the Government.

The Government might deny that there is whipping in committees, but in the previous session that was very clear and commonplace. It is clear that the committee system is broken and needs a complete overhaul—a complete rethink. Until that happens, we will have a Government that can do what it wants, when it wants, however it wants. To be honest, I say that that is not a good or effective way to make legislation. In fact, it is an embarrassment to the people of Scotland and to parliamentarians who try to use Parliament to change things.

I will turn to some of the key points that have been raised in the debate. Our SPPA Committee convener made many important points—perhaps the most important of which was about the need for debate, which, by definition, is when opposing ideas are discussed and not just put forward without discourse. The number of interventions that the convener took during his speech proves that he favours debate, and that he is a man of his word.

I am slightly disappointed that the Government minister, George Adam, did not identify any of the key failings of parliamentary procedure that are clearly evident to other members of the Parliament.

I was struck by Stephen Kerr’s point that questions need answers, and not just an answer that has been prepared weeks in advance. I also take Sarah Boyack’s point on the verbosity of ministers; it was well made.

Jackson Carlaw made some valid points and comments about the need to reform FMQs and the format of all questions and answers. I look forward to finding a way around that. I agree with Daniel Johnson that Parliament should be about dialogue, which means debate, which means reaching out and talking to each other.

I was struck by the plea from my colleague Tess White that Parliament be used to make announcements so that the Government can be questioned on them, rather than using the media to slip out the statements that it will not make in Parliament.

I am conscious that my time is running short, but I want to make one point entirely clear. I have benefited from the fact that there is a hybrid Parliament in which I can take part from home. I do not propose that we change that, but it should not be the norm. It should be used with care and sparingly, when it is needed to allow members to contribute. After all, we are better if we negotiate with each other face to face, when that is possible. I support the hybrid format, but I do not want it to be the only way we operate.

There is a lot that this Parliament needs to do to evolve and mature after the 22 years since it was originally set up. From the chamber to the committee rooms, we need changes that nurture debate and encourage scrutiny instead of encouraging lectures, blind loyalty, patsy questions and no answers being given to Opposition members or, indeed, to members of the party that is in government. I do not believe that the Parliament will be working for the benefit of the people of Scotland until we make such changes.

One of the preferred options for Moray is a midwife-led service, like the one in Caithness. The result in Caithness is that fewer babies than ever before have been born there—only about 20 to 30 per cent of all births in the far north happen in Caithness.

What work will the Scottish Government commission to assess whether NHS Highland can truly take on the additional work without disadvantaging its catchment patients? What will be the additional cost and who will fund it?