���˿���

The witnesses have said that, as one would expect, careful consideration was given to the issues in arriving at the key recommendation that there should be three units, which would be in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. What consideration was given to Inverness?

Finally, did you consider demographic trends? The point that I am making is perhaps not immediately obvious, but Inverness is the fastest-growing city in Scotland, and possibly the fastest-growing city in Europe. The population is increasing. I do not know whether it is because of the fresh air or something in the water, but, over the next 10 or 20 years, the population is due to expand more rapidly than anywhere else in Scotland, not least because of renewables activity in the inner Moray Firth. Various figures have been put on it, but I think that the rise will amount to around 30,000 people over the next 15 years. That will substantially increase the pressure on Raigmore hospital, which is falling apart at the seams and needs to be replaced—there is no doubt about that.

If we are thinking strategically about Scotland, these decisions need to be made on a long-term basis, and that means that, surely, we cannot just isolate the Highlands. Paragraph 56 of your report, which covers risks and conclusions—I was going to quote from it, but it would take too long—specifically says that Aberdeen is fine because it negates the problem of long journeys from the north. I am very sorry, but no, it does not. I was surprised to see that comment in your report, and I wonder whether you might want to rephrase or recast it.

More important, is there not a case for looking again very carefully at the changing circumstances, demographic and otherwise, in the Highlands, which I think would offer a strong case for providing four centres and not three?

I absolutely support the tributes that the convener and Mr Torrance have eloquently paid to the petitioner for her efforts. I will make a few other remarks.

The petition is now just over four years old. Had it not been pursued so determinedly and doggedly by the petitioner, I do not think that the pilot for the scanner would ever have been granted. Because that pilot began in May 2025 in Glasgow, it would make sense to see what the outcome is. I thoroughly endorse the idea of bringing back a petition, but if CT scanners had been used, some of the anguish that was caused to the petitioner in the loss of Richard would have been avoided. Therefore, I think that it makes sense for the petitioner to consider ascertaining more information, perhaps through local ���˿��� or MPs, as to how that pilot is doing, when it will conclude and when the outcome will be known, as well as whether there will be any delay—as, sadly, there so often is. That might inform a further petition.

I also support what Monica Lennon has said. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate—a lady for whom I have the utmost respect—did not see fit to offer an apology. In her submission, she said that the reason why no change is being proposed is that the need to have independent investigations cannot be prejudiced. That is absolutely true. The whole point of having a prosecution system that is separate from Parliament is that it is entirely independent of politicians. That is at the core of a system of democracy. However, in no way does that prevent the return of tissue or, indeed, the avoidance of invasive post-mortem techniques. In other words, that does not prejudice independent investigations. That is a completely false argument and a non sequitur. It is very disappointing that the Lord Advocate should present an argument that appears to be flawed, I would argue. I am pretty sure that those of us who are here will return to the matter in the next session.

The exact wording that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government used in her written submission of 5 November was:

“I can confirm that the Scottish Government is actively exploring legislative options and intends to bring forward proposals in the coming months to address this issue.”

I do not mean to be pedantic, but that does not necessarily mean that the cabinet secretary is going to do what the petitioner has asked for. I am not suggesting that we keep the petition open, because I think that, with the petitioner’s stimulus, we have achieved the outcome that he appears to have set out to achieve, but I wonder whether we might, in closing the petition, write to the cabinet secretary to urge her to make it clear to the Parliament as soon as possible precisely what will be done. At the same time, as a matter of courtesy, we could copy her letter to the petitioner.

I am grateful to Mr Torrance for those suggestions, with which I heartily concur. Obviously, I have a strong constituency interest, and have had such an interest for 26 years now, and I know that the Nairn bypass scheme was promised to be delivered as part of the dualled A96 by 2030. That ain’t gonna happen. In the summer, Nairn is probably about as congested as any town in Scotland, because there is really only one way in and one way out for most traffic. Increasingly, smaller roads are being used as rat runs to cut out delays arising from using the A96 to go through Nairn, which can take up to an hour. However, that is causing huge concern and, indeed, road traffic incidents.

This is a serious matter. The Inverness Courier held a public meeting that the transport secretary attended, to be fair to her, but she was not able to answer questions about the timeline or the financing, despite the fact that the Scottish Government’s budget is now £7,000 million a year. There is more than enough money over the next few years to deliver on the promises that have, I am sad to say, been broken.

Lastly, on the A96 as a whole, a sum of no less than £92 million has been spent on the dualling programme, including the section from Smithton to Auldearn, but not an inch of tarmac has been laid. How that can possibly have been achieved is something that is completely beyond me and my constituents.

I hope that, in writing to the minister, we can ask when she will make the statement to Parliament that has been promised. Will it happen this year, or will it happen at the very fag end of this session of Parliament, in the same way that an announcement about a section of A9 dualling was made in February or March 2021—a section that, incidentally, has not yet been dualled?

This has been a tale of woe. I do not wish to take up the committee’s time, but it is a highly important matter for the people of Nairn and the Highlands.

For the sake of completeness, I point out that I recall—because I was present—when President Trump, who was then a businessman in north-east Scotland, appeared before a committee of this Parliament and stated that the wind turbines opposite his golf course should not go ahead. When he was asked what his evidence was, he replied, “I am the evidence.”

Thanks for clarifying that.

In your written submission, you state that the recommendation is that

“Scotland should move to a model of three-to-five ... units ... in the short term, progressing to three units within five years”.

I represent the seat of Inverness and Nairn, which is in the centre of the Highlands, but the Highlands is roughly the size of Belgium. For example, the journey time from Wick to Aberdeen is four hours 41 minutes by car—it is 204 miles. I have absolutely nothing against my colleagues and friends representing the Wishaw area, but the journey time from Wishaw to Glasgow is 30 minutes, and the distance is 20 miles. I want to put that in perspective, because the geography of Scotland, once one leaves the central belt is, by and large, one of very sparse populations spread over enormous areas.

It is your clinical judgment that there should be a move to five units and then to three. What would you say to those who say that, if there is nothing in the Highlands, the nearest place is Aberdeen, which means that people who live in the more rural parts of the Highlands—you could make the same case for the south of Scotland and other rural areas such as the north-east, Argyll and the islands in particular—are second-class citizens when it comes to neonatal care? Specifically, in your deliberations, did you consider geographical justice, if I can make it into a rather short, if somewhat crude, phrase?

You can see what I am driving at. There are very strong feelings in places such as Wick and Elgin that maternity services should be retained there. Indeed, campaigns have been going on there for many years.

A final thought, indeed. In Canada, they have flying doctors precisely because of this issue; they have the same thing in the Australian outback, and our outback is the Highlands. What you are advocating is that health services in remote areas must have on-call contracts for helicopters or planes in order to transport, when necessary, the mother and baby to a centre of excellence to receive the specialist care that it is your advice is essential. Is that right—that that must be part of the service?

I can understand that, with the specialisms that are present in the units in Glasgow and Edinburgh—I should say that my partner is a very senior anaesthetist with nearly 40 years’ experience in the national health service—it makes sense that they would be two of the choices. I think that most people would agree with that, whatever part of Scotland they represent. However, I understand that the unit in Aberdeen—I have nothing against Aberdeen; it is all one country—is not expected to meet the recommended threshold of 100 very low birth weight admissions per year, which means that it is some way behind Glasgow and Edinburgh. Would it not have been possible to provide more specialist resource in Inverness in order to provide a degree of geographical equity? Without downplaying Aberdeen, could there not be a case for four units, given that, as I said to Dr Wardle, the travel time to Aberdeen from most places in the Highlands is about three to five hours—it takes a day from the islands—whereas the travel time from Wick to Inverness is about two hours and 20 minutes? That latter time is not great, but, from most places in the Highlands, it is quicker to travel to Inverness than to Aberdeen.

I am just looking at things from a geographical point of view. I appreciate that clinical decisions must trump everything else when there is a case of a baby who requires specialist care. However, would it not be possible to have four centres, one of which would be in Inverness, although that would require more resource to be placed in Inverness, more consultants to be situated there and more provision to be made available for emergency situations, if I could put it crudely like that?

I support that, including for the reason that, although in theory the specific proposal should not be necessary, in practice, the petitioner has had an experience that is quite the contrary: one of a failure to carry out a proper process, according to the petitioner’s narrative. Therefore, it would do no harm, particularly given the increasing importance of digital material and evidence in court, to understand what safeguards are in place to ensure that it is properly authenticated and verified as far as possible.

The main thrust of the petitioner’s submission is that that should happen, but one doubts whether it in fact happens, for various practical reasons. Not least of those would be because, to be honest, some people of my vintage might not really understand how digital material works. I would be surprised if some of my learned friends were necessarily experts at digital technology. The petitioner has raised an interesting area of evidence in criminal proceedings that should be pursued and clarified.