Fort William isn’t ready for its new hospital yet, according to some councillors.
A row erupted after two motions to improve healthcare in Lochaber and Caithness were amended in a head-to-head Highland Council debate.
Councillor John Grafton wants the Scottish Government to include the Belford Hospital in its capital programme.
Mr Grafton said lengthy delays in replacing the 1960s hospital in Fort William are having a discouraging effect on the community.
“This is about hope,” he told members in the chamber, adding: “We’re ready to go.”
His motion was seconded by Thurso councillor and chairman of Caithness Health Action Team Ron Gunn. Mr Gunn observed: “I can imagine how disappointed residents must feel.”
Mr Gunn also seconded a motion from Sutherland councillor Richard Gale to improve the A9 north for Caithness patients travelling to Raigmore.
It’s part of a more co-ordinated approach from Highland councillors campaigning for improved rural healthcare.
Rural councillors co-ordinating efforts on Highland healthcare
Councillor Callum Munro told members there’s a lot of shared ground between the councillors in Fort William, Caithness, Sutherland and Skye.
“There’s common cause for us to come together,” he said, adding that the Belford motion “reflects the general frustration with the time it’s taking to come to fruition.”
However, while Mr Grafton said Fort William is ready to go with the Belford, SNP councillors claimed otherwise.
Sarah Fanet said the project is not just about a new building – it’s about a complete reorganisation of health provision. She said local stakeholders are working on the business model right now, and this motion is premature. If the Scottish Government did produce the money, she said, “We’d have to say sorry, we’re not ready.”
Ms Fanet suggested an amendment that council will work with NHS Highland and stakeholders, and request regular updates on the Belford business model.
Her amendment won the support of the chamber, with 38 votes to Mr Grafton’s 25.
SNP says Caithness motion is too narrow
Next, it was the turn of Caithness and Sutherland. Sutherland councillor Richard Gale highlighted the condition of the A9 north, referencing two accidents that recently closed the road.
Mr Gale set out statistics about the hundreds of patients travelling from Caithness to Raigmore every day, including labouring women. With no diversion available, the poor condition of the road threatened the health and wellbeing of local people, he said.
Mr Gale’s motion asked council to call for an urgent upgrade of a specific stretch of road from Brora to Helmsdale.
However, Thurso member Karl Rosie said the motion was too narrow, and too negative. Mr Rosie expressed concern about how the wording of the motion would land locally, saying it’s time to be more positive about Caithness.
He tabled an amendment which removed the Caithness references from the motion. Instead, it focused on the dualling of the A9 as a whole. On the suggestion of the Greens, it also pressed for improvements to the far north rail line.
‘This is not a competition’
Council leader Raymond Bremner also wanted to broaden the scope of the motion. “No matter where you live in Highland, our roads are in need of an upgrade,” he said. “It’s not a competition.”
The council adjourned to see if a compromise could be reached. However, both Richard Gale and his Liberal Democrat colleague Molly Nolan took issue with the removal of Caithness from the motion.
Mr Gale said his intention was not to detract from other areas, but to highlight one specific problem that needs urgent action.
He said the amendment “waters down the whole thing” and would result in “people coming round the table, moaning about Highland roads then going on their merry way”.
Mr Gale pushed the motion to the vote, but it was defeated 25-35, with four abstentions.
Conversation