Chamber and committees

I just have a very quick comment.

I am reasonably disappointed by the Scottish Government’s response, in that it just goes over what it has said before. There is not an awful lot that is different in it.

I note that the National Services Division has not yet responded although, at the time of the previous meeting, it said that it was working with NHS Tayside and was due to meet it at the end of January. It also said that it might be able to consider a formal application in either May or June. It is important to keep the petition open until summer, so that we can see what conclusion the National Services Division reaches.

Mary Ramsay has pointed out that a number of people are affected by the condition, so it is important that we make some progress. Mary has also stated that she would be happy to give further evidence to the committee, if it wishes, and Ian Sharp, who has benefited from focused ultrasound treatment, has also made that offer.

I encourage the committee to keep the petition open and to keep scrutinising the issue in the hope that we make some progress.

I agree with everything that Liam McArthur has said. The news that there has been a pause is welcome, because that is what Prospect was asking for and, indeed, what the staff and communities were asking for—they want time to look at the alternative solutions.

Nobody is arguing that we do not need to improve safety; the argument was that HIAL’s proposals did not provide additional safety but were about centralisation. They would cause huge economic damage without providing the safety that people want.

I would be grateful if the committee would look at a number of things. The proposed discussions about Benbecula and Wick were overlooked because of the enormity of the proposals, which impacted all the airports. There is concern that the downgrading of Benbecula and Wick will go ahead. Those airports need safe surveillance and locally based air traffic control. Both Benbecula and Wick are looking at becoming satellite launch sites, so they need safe airspace.

Benbecula is also host to QinetiQ’s Hebrides range, which means that there is often a huge amount of air activity when tests are taking place. The Hebrides range also provides a potential solution, in that it has radar. HIAL could work with the range to provide that in Benbecula. That would be a very affordable course of action that would not cause huge disruption.

One of the issues in all of this was the recruitment of air traffic control staff. The air traffic control staff in Benbecula tend to be young, so that airport has staff into the future. They are local people—they are not going to move anywhere. They will be lost to HIAL if it ends air traffic control at Benbecula.

There is also talk of a new island’s impact assessment. Therefore, any downgrading of Benbecula should surely wait until that impact assessment has been done. That would be within the spirit of the law.

With regard to Wick, people will be aware of the closing of Dounreay and the need for an economic focus on the area. A lot of work is going on with renewables and with the maintenance of devices, but the area needs good air traffic links to other parts of the United Kingdom to be able to attract jobs. It is very important that it has a safe airspace. Indeed, we are trying to encourage more traffic there.

I will not repeat what the convener said about the CAA’s comments, but it would be well worth the committee speaking to the CAA to find out what is happening, including about Wick perhaps being managed from Orkney. There was some discussion about that, and the CAA was not keen.

HIAL used to be very good at staff recruitment. It used to recruit from local communities. It would train people up and those people stayed. HIAL had its biggest recruitment issue in Inverness, where people tended to be more mobile. The committee should make HIAL look at that again and ensure that it starts recruiting again, because that is one of its reasons for stepping back—it says that if it cannot recruit, it will continue with the position as it was.

I know that the petitioners were keen to see Digital Scotland’s second report published. HIAL has it so it would be useful if the committee would ask it to publish that report.

There is also the centralisation of radar surveillance at Inverness. That does not make sense given that we are to have air traffic control at the airports, so how that decision was reached could be scrutinised. I know that there are concerns in Shetland about that, because the airport there has its own radar and there might be an impact if radar were centralised at Inverness.

I agree about the other issues that have been mentioned, such as the use of New Century house—I do not want to repeat everything.

As you have said, convener, over the past 14 years, the Rest and Be Thankful has been closed on quite a number of occasions, and it has cost over £87 million in efforts to keep it open and keep traffic safe.

You referred to the large landslide in August 2020, in which 10,000 tonnes of debris fell on the A83 and the old military road. The old military road, which sits in the valley below, is used as a temporary route when the A83 is closed. In that situation, the traffic could not use the A83 or the old military road, and there was a 60-mile additional journey over the A82 because of the closure. Another landslide occurred in September, only six days after the A83 reopened. That led to the A83 being open for less than 50 per cent of the time in the four months at the end of 2020.

It has been estimated that £5.5 million was lost to the local economy between August 2020 and March 2021. That does not take account of potential economic development that has gone elsewhere because of the uncertainty over the route. Depopulation is also a big issue in the area, and it will get worse because of that uncertainty.

As you said, convener, options were consulted on, and there is a preferred solution that follows a similar route. However, that requires quite a lot of work to examine rerouting and building a viaduct or tunnel. A medium-term solution through Glen Croe is also being discussed. There is real frustration locally about the length of time that that is taking and the money that it is costing.

We know that 100,000 tonnes of unstable material is risking lives and livelihoods in Argyll. Given the impact that was caused by 10,000 tonnes, we can imagine what 100,000 tonnes would do. Despite all the time that has passed, there is no clear indication of when a solution will be in place. We need a clear timetable for emergency measures and for medium and long-term solutions, and we need to know whether finance will be available to carry out that work. Hence the petitioners’ call for a public inquiry.

Thank you, convener. If I seem to be here a lot of the time, it simply shows how important the committee is to my constituents. It makes a real difference to people’s lives, and I hope that this petition will also have that impact.

Since the committee last considered the petition, I have spoken to and met Mary Ramsay virtually on a number of occasions. Following some of those meetings with Mary, and with other stakeholders who have an interest, I wrote to Ralph Roberts, who is chair of the national specialist services committee.

He told me that the national services division is due to meet the clinical team in Dundee towards the end of this month to discuss how a formal application for designation and the relevant paperwork can be prepared for consideration by both the national patient, public and professional reference group and the national specialist services committee. He told me that the next meetings of those groups are scheduled for February and March, but that it is unlikely that they will discuss focused ultrasound at those meetings. The issue is more likely to be discussed at the May or June meetings, and there is no guarantee that a conclusion will be reached at that time.

It feels to me that there is still no real recognition of the issues that people with essential tremor face in having to travel to London for assessment and again if they are assessed as suitable for the procedure. There is also no acknowledgement of the waiting times that people face and the impact on their lives.? There are real fears that the decision will be further delayed beyond the spring or summer.

The committee knows how long the petition has been before it and the previous committee. I share Mary Ramsay’s frustration that we appear to be moving at a snail’s pace in bringing this much-needed treatment to patients in Scotland.? Patients have to consider joining a waiting list in London, where the treatment is available. However, that is a long waiting list; indeed, NHS England is looking to create another centre to deal with the demand.

It makes no sense whatever to me that we have the equipment and knowledge in Scotland but we are not using those for our patients, who are forced to travel to access the treatment.? That is not good for them, and it is certainly not good for the public purse. I am not sure whether the committee is aware that 80 patients were referred for assessment in Dundee last year from their health boards, and that around 25 per cent were considered to be appropriate for treatment.

I urge the committee to keep the petition open and to put pressure on the bodies that I mentioned to ensure that the treatment is approved as quickly as possible. I think that the committee already knows that Mary Ramsay and Ian Sharp, who has had the treatment, are happy to give evidence on their experience and show at first hand the difference that treatment can make to those with essential tremor. Perhaps the committee could also contact the NPPPRG and the NSSC to ask them to give priority to their consideration of the treatment and to do so at their earlier meetings. As you said, convener, because of Covid, those bodies have not met for a long time.

Thank you for allowing me in again to comment on this petition.

I meet CHAT quite regularly, and in July, it raised the issue of community participation with me. The group had contacted NHS Highland, but the health board refused to recognise it as a constituted community-controlled body. I believe that the group is controlled by the community and that it needs to be recognised as such. It has a constitution, which sets out that it is community led, and it holds regular annual general meetings and regularly meets the community that it represents.

I have taken the matter up with NHS Highland on the group’s behalf, but it is not changing its position. As there is no appeals process, CHAT has no chance to debate its case with someone from outwith the organisation.

Members of the public regularly contact CHAT to ask for its assistance and to advise it of issues that they have faced, and, to be honest, I think that that often puts it at odds with NHS Highland. Nevertheless, I believe that it fulfils an important role in the community. It is keen for the health authority to engage with its members before any action is taken up in Caithness; in fact, the team has given me examples of issues on which there has been no consultation at all. For instance, a midwife-led maternity unit that was introduced resulted in a 200-mile round trip to Raigmore hospital for pregnant at-risk women.

I agree that people in Caithness are victims of the centralisation of healthcare services and that rural areas are being left out of the decision-making process. An appeals process would let the team question the ruling of any public body, and I support its introduction sooner rather than later. I would also say that NHS Highland’s out-of-hand dismissal of an appeal on this matter is wrong, and an appeals process would at least give the team the right to call such decisions into question. At any rate, I think that the board’s approach is questionable.

If the committee will indulge me a little, I have some information that I would like to relay, having spoken to the petitioner.

As you have said, convener, HIAL and Prospect recently released a joint statement, saying that they had agreed a framework for discussion regarding a new way forward for ATMS. Some people have taken that to mean that air traffic staff will now remain local. However, that is not the case. Work on the remote towers is continuing; only the timetable has changed. It is widely believed that HIAL is not looking for a meaningful solution that does not involve remote towers.

I understand from the petitioners that HIAL has hit some of the problems that were predicted in the evidence that they submitted to the committee, and that is why it has agreed to a delay. HIAL has stated that it will review air traffic provision after it has implemented the surveillance programme—which is commonly referred to as radar. My understanding is that the ATMS timetable has effectively been put on hold by HIAL for five years while it develops surveillance, which is required regardless of whether it proceeds with remote towers. HIAL has said, however, that it will implement remote towers in Inverness. That makes no sense, except that it has already bought the building where they will be located. That has no support from staff, or indeed from the public.

Neither have remote towers been ruled out for any of the other airports. They are merely being postponed for up to five years by HIAL in the hope that the problems that are dogging the project at the moment will be resolved. There is obviously a concern that delays will add to costs.

The CAA currently requires both primary and secondary radar. Primary radar shows any aircraft flying in the vicinity as a blip on a screen while secondary radar requires equipment to be carried on an aircraft to identify it to the controller. HIAL want to use the form of radar that shows suitably equipped aircraft. That is an issue in some of those airports where flight clubs and light aircraft use airports quite often.

In evidence submitted to the committee, the Minister for Transport said:

“HIAL have had many discussions with the CAA around the direction of travel towards a more cooperative surveillance approach (which ADS-B is one element of such a system). The CAA has not, however, given HIAL a firm timeline for implementation.”

The CAA requires HIAL to install primary radar. That could cost in excess of £30 million to implement, which has not been budgeted for.

Benbecula and Wick John O’Groats airports are being treated separately. HIAL wants to downgrade those airports from an air traffic control service to a flight information service. The impact on the community that is served by Benbecula airport will be profound, and both Wick and Benbecula may have difficulty in finding airlines to operate PSO routes.

Downgrading will also decrease safety, which is unacceptable to the petitioners, air traffic staff and the communities that those airports serve. It could result in a less safe and less flexible operation and may lead to airborne conflict, putting passengers at risk. That is especially an issue in Benbecula, which is very close to the QinetiQ range. It could also prevent Wick from becoming a hub for offshore traffic, as it was quite recently in the past. At the moment, work is on-going to attract more, rather than fewer, flights to both those airports. It will also cause unnecessary delays and cancellations to aircraft using those airports in bad weather during the winter.

I will quote what one of the petitioners told me this week. He said:

“In short, ATMS has been a mess since its conception. It is continuing in the same way. The wheels are coming off HIAL’s ATMS juggernaut, yet it rolls on leaving damage in its wake. It needs to be steered into the scrapyard of history and left there. HIAL as an organisation must get a blank sheet of paper, sit down with the representatives of the communities it is meant to serve and redesign itself. The board and senior management have completely lost sight of their role, which is to run airports efficiently for the benefit of their communities, not squander taxpayers money on unnecessary vanity projects.”

I could not agree more.

In the short term, I suggest that the committee contacts HIAL to get a clear indication of its plans regarding surveillance and remote towers, and whether it will recoup or lose funds if it disposes of the building that it has bought to house remote towers in Inverness. In the long term, I suggest that we keep a watching brief on the petition, because I fear that those developments are designed to take the heat out of the situation but make no real change to the future direction of travel.

I mentioned flying clubs and people who use recreational aircraft. It might be worth trying to contact some of them to find out what their concerns are. When the remote tower model was first mooted, there were concerns about how the airspace would be managed and how that would impact on their activities. There is a flying club based at Inverness, but there will be other such organisations throughout the area.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee to discuss the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal for a right to food (Scotland) bill. It is quite fitting that we are talking about this in challenge poverty week.

The committee is being asked to determine whether it is content with the statement of reasons, which sets out why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a consultation on my proposal.

My proposal is, in effect, the same as the proposal that Elaine Smith lodged in the previous parliamentary session, that is, to incorporate the right to food into Scots law. Elaine Smith obtained the right to introduce a bill, but there was not enough time left in the session to do so. A consultation on her proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a wide range of individuals and organisations from different sectors and backgrounds. The individual responses, and a summary of the responses, are publicly available online—the committee has probably seen them.

The variety of responses to the consultation from the public and other stakeholders across Scotland remain relevant to my proposal, as do many of the studies and papers that have been published on the right to food.

To repeat the consultation process for what is, in effect, the same bill proposal that Elaine Smith originally consulted on and lodged would be an unnecessary duplication of work, particularly given that the consultation closed only a little over a year ago, in September 2020, and such a timeframe fits with that of other bills.

Therefore, I hope that the committee agrees that further consultation is not required in this instance. I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have.

As I said, a number of those organisations were statutory bodies, such as health boards, which might not have seen the proposal as their number 1 priority. They might have expected others to respond on their behalf.

I am aware that those pieces of legislation have been promised. It was promised that the good food nation bill would be introduced in the previous session, but its introduction has been held across to this session.

The Government has said that it does not plan to incorporate a right to food in the good food nation bill. It has made it clear that it is looking at the issue more in the context of its proposed human rights bill. However, it is not clear to me whether, as part of the human rights bill, it would have the vehicle for delivery that forms part of my proposed bill. If the committee decides that I can proceed with my bill, based on the previous consultation, the Government will have the opportunity, once I have introduced it, to take it over, should it decide to legislate in that way. Therefore, nothing will be lost—it will be able to go ahead and do that. However, if the Government did not want to have such a vehicle for implementation, I could proceed with the bill, and the Government could comment on it at that stage.