Seòmar agus comataidhean

I also suggest that we invite the relevant members who have been involved in the petition to accompany us on our visit. We could liaise with them about people we might see in order to draw some direct attention to this issue. Are members content with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

For our next petition, which was lodged by Lynne McRitchie, we are joined by a galaxy of talent—[Laughter.] Mr Ewing, please.

Lynne McRitchie is not with us today but there are supporters of the aims of the petition in the gallery. We are joined by Jackie Baillie MSP and Richard Leonard MSP. I cannot remember, Richard, whether you have been to one of these shindigs before or whether this is your first appearance. Did you come once before?

That is right; I recall it now. Welcome to you both.

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 light of contradictory expert opinions on centralising services.

Neonatal units operate at three different levels: level 1 units provide special care, for example tube-feeding and intravenous antibiotic therapy; level 2 units provide specialised and high-dependency care, including assisted ventilation and short-term neonatal intensive care; and level 3 units provide the full range of medical neonatal medical care.

Following a review of maternity and neonatal services, the Scottish Government published a report entitled “The Best Start: A Five-year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”, which recommended that a new model of neonatal services should be designed to accommodate the current levels of demand, with a smaller number of intensive care neonatal units.

The British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s framework recommends that neonatal intensive care units should admit at least 100 very low-birthweight babies a year and undertake at least 2,000 intensive care days per year. The perinatal group recommended the retention of three NICUs and that the remaining units be downgraded to level 2 neonatal units. As part of that change, the scope of the practice carried out by level 2 units will be wider than the previous level 2 definition.

The Scottish Government accepted the recommendations of the report, and work is under way to implement the new model of care. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health’s response to the petition states that the intention with the new model of care is that mothers in suspected extreme pre-term labour will be transferred before they give birth to maternity units in the hospitals that have neonatal intensive care units. The submission states that those units will have expanded capacity. It is noted that it will not always be possible to transfer mothers before they give birth, and in those cases the specialist neonatal transfer service, ScotSTAR, will transfer those babies in specialist ambulances. The submission states that consultation will take place with families during the implementation phase.

I should say that Monica Lennon has joined us for this petition as well—I neglected to mention her earlier, as she was already sitting at the table. I invite Jackie Baillie to make some comments.

PE2013, which was lodged by Neil McNamara, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce, without delay, a national dashcam safety portal, as already agreed by Police Scotland. The petition was last considered in October 2023. Following that meeting, we wrote to Police Scotland and the National Police Chiefs Council. Police Scotland’s response states that its digital evidence-sharing capability programme is fully funded for a period of 10 years. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions for action?

PE2029, on nationalising Clydeport to bring the ports and harbours on the River Clyde into public ownership, was lodged by Robert Buirds on behalf of the campaign to save Inchgreen dry dock. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use the powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Ltd as the harbour authority for the River Clyde and its estuary; to establish a municipal port authority in Clydeport’s place and bring the strategic network of ports and harbours along the River Clyde into public ownership; and to compulsorily purchase Inchgreen dry dock for the benefit of the Inverclyde community.

Again, it is some time since we last considered the petition—it was on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to stakeholders, including maritime trade bodies, regional councils and major industrial companies along the River Clyde. I know that Paul Sweeney, our former colleague, had hoped to meet us this morning but was unable to do so. However, he helpfully suggested a number of the stakeholders from whom we were able to gather evidence. In total, we have received 13 new submissions, all of which are detailed in the papers that members have received for today. Those include two submissions from the petitioner, which share their comments on the responses that we have received and their continued concern about the performance of Peel Ports as the harbour authority.

Although the Scottish Government has stated that its aim is to bring more ports and harbours into the ownership of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd where the primary function is the provision of lifeline ferry services, it is also the Scottish Government’s position—this is the difficulty—that nationalising Clydeport would not be appropriate and that it has no plans to take such action.

That is the bold position in relation to the petition’s ask, notwithstanding all the efforts and the considerable number of submissions that we have received. If the Government is saying that it will not do this, what more can we do to try to promote the aims of the petition? There are a couple of potential routes, but I invite comments from colleagues on our best course of action.

PE2040 is on increasing funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to prevent serious cuts to the services that are provided to the public. The petition, which was lodged by Anthony McManus, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the annual budget that is provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and to take action to prevent job losses and the removal of front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union. I think that the matter was highlighted by the fire that took place at the old Ayr station hotel, where fire appliances were not immediately available.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service response tells us that the temporary withdrawal of fire appliances was based on data and modelling that helped to identify which appliances would have the least impact on its emergency response, while helping the service to meet financial savings. That is in the context of the service requiring to make £11 million-worth of savings in the financial year 2023-24.

The Fire Brigades Union has highlighted that the flat cash budget provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has resulted in real-terms budget cuts to the service that it believes risk compromising firefighter and public safety.

As we reflected at the previous consideration, the issues that are raised by the petition were looked at by the Criminal Justice Committee as part of its pre-budget scrutiny work last year. As members may be aware, the Criminal Justice Committee is continuing to look at the area ahead of this year’s pre-budget scrutiny. In view of the direct attention on the issues of the petition by our colleagues in that committee, do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

Thank you very much, Tess. The petition raises significant issues. I am sure that the committee will wish to keep it open. Do colleagues have any suggestions about what we might do?

I thank Monica Lennon, and I thank Karen McKeown for her sustained efforts over the life of the Parliament.

Are colleagues content that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE2093, on the Scottish ministerial code. In summarising the petition, I may make reference to active cases about which we should be circumspect about making any further comment.

The petition, which was lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code; to put the code under statute; to enable the independent advisers to initiate investigations; and, if the First Minister decides to go against the IAs’ advice, to ensure that a statement is provided to Parliament. The petition also calls for the code to set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament and to allow IAs to make recommendations for changes to the code. It further calls for a renaming of the IA position to make it clear there is no judicial involvement and seeks to require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

The petitioner believes that updating the ministerial code by making such changes would strengthen standards and improve public confidence.

Members will be aware that, as is noted in the SPICe briefing, new versions of the ministerial code can be issued at any time and that previous updates have been issued following Scottish Parliament elections and changes of First Minister.

In its response, the Scottish Government highlights the fact that the ministerial code was most recently updated in July 2023 to further strengthen transparency and propriety and states that there are no current plans to update the code during the remainder of this session of Parliament. It might be worth noting that the Scottish Government’s response was provided prior to John Swinney being appointed as First Minister.

We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, which set out in more detail how he believes that the ministerial code should be updated to improve public trust and transparency when applying the code or investigating potential breaches of it.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???