Official Report 1099KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.
Cockle Fishery (Solway Firth)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement its marine directorate has undertaken to progress any plans to reopen a boat-based cockle fishery on the Solway Firth. (S6O-04994)
The marine directorate of the Scottish Government has been considering a proposal that it received for a Solway cockle scientific trial using fishing vessels. During portfolio question time on 10 September 2025, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands assured Mr Carson that a discussion would be arranged with him once further information had been received from the marine directorate, and steps are currently being taken to arrange such a meeting.
I thank the minister for his response. He will no doubt know that the Solway Firth has long been recognised as one of Scotland’s most productive shellfish areas, with a rich history of cockle fishing that has supported generations of coastal communities. The potential reopening of a vessel-based cockle fishery in my region represents not only an opportunity to revive a once-thriving industry but a chance to deliver sustainable economic growth in a region that faces persistent challenges around rural employment and depopulation.
I have worked with local scientists and stakeholders over the past few years, and it is clear that a well-managed boat-based fishery could deliver environmental safeguards, traceability and economic resilience, all while respecting the unique ecology of the Solway. With that in mind, will the minister and the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and stakeholders to accelerate the process so that the economic benefit is realised sooner rather than later?
Mr Carson has been pursuing the issue for years now—a long time, as far as I am aware—and I spoke to the cabinet secretary before she went away on her trip. I have been told that, as well as the arrangements that have been made for the cabinet secretary to meet Mr Carson, officials from the marine directorate intend to reconvene a meeting with the party that put forward the cockle proposal and the relevant fishers.
Opening a fishery is not a straightforward or quick process, and there are aspects of the proposal that has been made that require some clarification, but arrangements are currently being made for such a meeting as Mr Carson has asked for. I know that officials and the cabinet secretary will keep Mr Carson updated as that develops.
Farming Payments
To ask the Scottish Government when information on farming payments will be publicly available, in accordance with section 19 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-04995)
Scottish ministers are co-developing the approach to future agricultural support, and our agricultural reform route map will continue to update farmers and crofters on the changes. The rural support plan will set out the intended agricultural reform and the use of the 2024 act.
Our future approach to reporting on the publication of support information will be part of the aforementioned co-development process. In the meantime, the Rural Support (Simplification and Improvement) (Data Publication) Scotland Regulations 2025 will allow us to continue publishing information relating to payment recipients.
I thank the minister for that reply.
I wrote to the cabinet secretary as far back as 21 June last year, seeking clarity and a timetable on this. I raised it in Parliament with the minister on 7 May of this year, who told me, in his words, that it is “a complex issue”, but it is not a complex issue—it is a straightforward issue. It is simple. Is the Government on the side of secrecy or on the side of transparency, on the side of concealment or openness? When will it implement legislation passed by Parliament over a year ago so that it is a matter of public record just exactly who is in receipt of the £660 million of public money that is paid out through the farm payment system?
I dispute Richard Leonard’s position that we are doing anything other than being open and transparent. I suggest that data will be published annually by 30 June, following the financial year end. It will remain publicly accessible for two years from the date of publication. In addition, the Scottish Government’s publications must be approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office. What we are doing is anything other than trying to hold information back.
I have requests for two supplementaries—-I will take both. Christine Grahame can go first. I remind members that all supplementaries have to be supplemental to the question in the Business Bulletin.
I know that the minister recently had a meeting on farrowing crates. Would he consider using rural payments to support animal welfare improvements such as transitioning from farrowing crates to free farrowing?
The question in the Business Bulletin relates to the publicly available nature of the information on whatever the farming payments are made to promote. With that in mind, minister, please respond to Ms Grahame.
Certainly, Deputy Presiding Officer.
As the member has just talked about, I recently stated, at the alternative farrowing systems round-table discussion that I chaired in Parliament, that, once a definitive direction as to what will replace farrowing crates is determined, we will consider what options are available. We will continue to listen to and work with the industry and key stakeholders on how best to achieve improvements in animal welfare, as well as monitoring industry information to allow us to determine how to ensure that best practice is delivered.
Thank you, minister—I am not entirely sure that that related to the question in the Business Bulletin. We move to a supplementary from Mr Halcro Johnston; I hope that this might be closer to the mark.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business in receipt of farming payments and a member of NFU Scotland.
It was reported in The Scottish Farmer that the Government’s farming future investment scheme has been heavily oversubscribed, with more than 3,000 farms—including our own—applying to the £14 million scheme. What consideration is the Scottish Government giving to NFUS calls to increase funding for the scheme in 2025-26, and when will the offer of grants and payments to those farms that accept the offers start being made?
Again, if we could relate all the supplementaries to the actual question in the Business Bulletin—that includes the minister’s responses—that would be really helpful.
Okay—I will try to get my answer somewhere in relation to the question that was originally asked. We will make publicly available the amount of money that is going to be delivered via the farming investment scheme. We will, I hope, publish that information as farmers get it.
Question 3 has not been lodged.
Domestic Food and Drink Markets
To ask the Scottish Government when it last engaged with the United Kingdom Government on domestic food and drink markets. (S6O-04997)
The Scottish Government has consistently urged successive United Kingdom Governments to safeguard our domestic market and ensure fair competition for producers. However, recent trade deals, especially those affecting beef, sheep and dairy, have exposed Scottish farmers to increased risk, amid rising costs and an uncertain trade environment.
Meanwhile, meaningful collaboration between the Government and industry is vital to assess those trade impacts and protect domestic producers. It is, therefore, deeply concerning that the current UK Government shows only limited ministerial engagement on trade issues, despite the devolved nature of, and shared economic interests in, many aspects.
Farmers have warned that our food security is under serious threat as a result of the UK Government’s decision to scrap skilled worker code 5111, which effectively blocks farms from hiring skilled overseas workers. That leaves pig, poultry, dairy and horticultural producers struggling to fill vital jobs. In Dumfries and Galloway, more than 25 dairy farms depend on staff from the Philippines and other nations to keep operations running.
Does the minister agree that that is yet another example of a UK Government that is ignorant of, and does not care about, the needs of Scotland’s farmers?
It is clear that the UK immigration system no longer meets the needs of our economy, our public services or our communities. Scotland urgently requires tailored migration routes, such as the rural visa pilot, to reflect our distinct needs.
Labour shortages in the food and drink sector stem largely from Brexit, which led to the departure of many European Union citizens and the loss of vital skills. The UK Government’s removal of skilled worker code 5111 has worsened that situation, severely hindering the recruitment of overseas talent in sensitive sectors such as pig, poultry and dairy and making it unnecessarily difficult to fill essential roles and support industry sustainability.
Indeed, as the member is aware, an article in Farmers Guide by Aleksandra Cupriak, on 29 September, warns that the UK’s food security is at risk following the decision to remove skilled worker code 5111, taking skilled roles off the temporary shortage list, despite maintaining the code for builders. I would argue that folk who are working in the pig, poultry, dairy or processing sectors are skilled enough to keep food on our plates, so we should have a scheme that would allow us to issue visas to bring them to Scotland.
Rural Crime (Support for Famers)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the agriculture minister has had with the justice secretary regarding support for farmers in relation to rural crime. (S6O-04998)
I have not spoken directly to justice ministers about rural crime, but clearly issues such as machinery and livestock theft have a hugely detrimental effect on Scotland’s rural communities, including our hard-working farmers and crofters. A wide range of rural organisations, including NFU Scotland, are represented in the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime—SPARC—alongside Police Scotland. SPARC aims to prevent, reduce and tackle rural criminal activity and, in association with local partnerships, is seen as a success story in combating rural crime. The Scottish Government is a member of SPARC and is fully supportive of its work.
Farmers will be surprised and disappointed by the minister’s lack of action on rural crime. According to NFU Mutual, the cost of rural crime in Scotland increased by 34.9 per cent in 2022-23 and cost the Scottish economy £1.2 million last year. Around 2.7 million quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles were stolen in the past year and, last month, five were stolen in Aberdeenshire, possibly from the same outfit. What specific actions will the minister and/or his justice colleagues take in order to prevent north-east farmers from suffering from rural crime? When will those farmers see results?
I take Liam Kerr’s points on board. I accept that farm theft is a heinous crime that takes away the tools of a working farm. Farmers can do a number of things for themselves in order to protect their vehicles, such as placing blocks on the ground or using spray paint. As I have already stated, the Scottish Government is a member of SPARC and we continue to work with the industry to ensure that stakeholders have the information that they need to protect their businesses.
Previously, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety admitted that the Scottish National Party Government missed a legislative consent memorandum on a rural theft bill that was passed by a previous Conservative Government. In the light of the recent news of the rising cost of quad bike theft in Scotland, which Liam Kerr has referred to, does Jim Fairlie accept that the SNP’s significant oversight on the issue has left farmers and rural businesses such as those in my constituency in the Scottish Borders much worse off?
No, I defy that point. The Scottish Government has done everything in its power to ensure that Scotland’s rural communities are protected and supported at every turn.
Malting Barley Farmers
To ask the Scottish Government what long-term action it will take to support farmers growing malting barley. (S6O-04999)
I am aware that Scottish arable producers face significant challenges, including volatile markets and extreme weather. That is why the Scottish Government continues to provide certainty through direct support via the basic payment scheme, as set out in our vision for agriculture, in stark contrast to current and past United Kingdom Governments. This year, the Scottish Government launched its future farming investment scheme, offering at least £14 million to accelerate change in Scottish agriculture and support the Government’s vision. With 7,500 applications received, Scotland’s farmers and crofters have shown a strong commitment to key outcomes such as emissions reduction and nature restoration.
The minister will be aware that farmers growing malting barley have faced challenges this year, including a difficult harvest, falling prices, increased production costs and reduced demand from the Scotch whisky industry. Worryingly, it is anticipated that the challenges facing the industry will be long term and will affect farmers for years to come. Will the Scottish Government commit to increasing farm payments to compensate farmers for the losses that they are incurring? Will the Scottish Government liaise directly with the Scotch whisky industry to ensure that arable farmers are supported?
I take Meghan Gallacher’s points on board. We continuously engage with the Scotch Whisky Association as well as the Scottish agricultural community. In fact, the First Minister went to the White House to ensure that he was representing the Scotch Whisky Association to get the best possible deal, which should feed back into the industry. As far as funding is concerned, I reiterate that the Government has made sure that we keep direct payments in place, which is giving farmers in Scotland the security that they need.
Inshore Fishing (Offshore Wind Installations)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the existing conditions and regime that seek to protect inshore fishing from the impact of any loss of fishing grounds due to the seabed installation of cables for, and construction of, offshore wind installations, require to be reformed in order to provide full compensation for any loss of fishing revenue as a result of having to avoid an area of 0.25 nautical miles from any such cables. (S6O-05000)
The Scottish Government very much values the fisheries sector and recognises the need to address fishers’ concerns in relation to offshore wind development. We want a prosperous future for both sectors.
In relation to fishing over cables, fishers should continue to use their expert judgment and knowledge to guide where they fish. However, I agree that it is right to explore the matter. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has asked officials to work with the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council’s barriers to deployment group, which brings both sectors together to consider solutions, and to report back to her.
East-coast inshore fishermen are seeing valuable fishing grounds lost because they cannot fish within a quarter of a nautical mile over any seabed cabling that leads to offshore wind installations.
In the headlong dash for offshore wind projects—some apparently with little discernible direct benefit to Scotland—fishermen are simply not getting the compensation that they deserve. The Scottish National Party stood up for our fishermen for half a century. Will the Scottish Government now stand up for them by instigating an independent review to consider how our fishermen can get a fair deal from their own Government?
I dispute the suggestion that fishermen cannot fish over cables. My understanding is that there is no specific exclusion of fishing activities over or near a submarine cable, but it is an offence for fishers to wilfully or negligently damage cables or pipelines.
On whether there will be an independent review, there is already a cross-Government and cross-industry review looking at all the issues that Fergus Ewing has raised, which will be taken forward when the cabinet secretary returns.
In committee this morning, we heard from fishing stakeholders who said that everyone knows the value of oil and gas and the renewables industries, but that decision makers often forget about the economic value of fishing.
We need to plot the areas where fishing occurs and factor that in when we are planning for new developments. We desperately need a spatial plan for our seas. When will the Scottish Government bring that forward?
I am not privy to conversations that took place this morning.
I am sorry, but I have completely forgotten the question that Rhoda Grant asked—I was reading something. Could she ask it again?
No, we do not go backwards, I am afraid.
Ms Grant, given that the minister cannot now recall your question, he will probably wish to agree to write to you—and, indeed, all members—to say what his answer would have been if he had remembered the question. Minister, do you undertake to do that?
I am happy to answer the question if the member—
No, we do not go back and repeat questions, minister. Will you respond to the chamber with your answer in writing?
Yes.
The truth is that fishermen are increasingly being squeezed out of prime fishing grounds. NnG Offshore Wind agreed compensation for people using static and mobile gear. However, since then, wind farms have given compensation only to people using static gear—the creel fishermen. Will the minister intervene and make sure that all wind farms give compensation to all parts of the sector?
As Willie Rennie knows, fisheries compensation is a private matter between the wind developers and the fishers. The Scottish ministers have no regulatory or statutory mechanism for involvement in leveraging such financial payments. However, I am quite sure that, if the member writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, she will pick up that point for him.
The common theme in most of the answers today is, “We’re talking, we’re talking, we’re talking”, but we do not see any action. Fishermen are facing the problem of spatial squeeze right now, every single day, and they need some action. When is the Government going to act and put something in place, rather than just talking?
As usual, I will respond to Mr Eagle by saying that the talking will continue, because that is how we get resolutions, and that is what will happen.
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what benefits it anticipates the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will deliver for rural and island communities, including in relation to breaking up concentrated land ownership and ensuring that land is used in the public interest and communities are not locked out of decision making. (S6O-05001)
Scotland has one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in the world, so the bill sets out ambitious proposals that will change how land is managed in our rural and island communities for the better.
The bill will prohibit certain land sales of more than 1,000 hectares until ministers can consider the sustainability of local communities, and it will require the owners of large landholdings to engage with local communities about how they use their land. It also includes measures to give greater protection and fairness to tenant farming, making it fit for the future.
Former MSP Andy Wightman has called the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
“the least ambitious ... ever introduced”,
saying that it creates
“new complexities, friction and conflict in the land market for no evident gain.”
Scotland cannot afford a land reform bill that just tinkers around the edges while ignoring the harsh reality of concentrated land ownership. Rural communities are being locked out of housing and local economies, as land and property are treated as investments.
Will the Government commit to ensuring that the bill will release land for genuinely affordable community-led housing and, possibly, self-builders, rather than add bureaucracy and leave local people behind?
I dispute Ash Regan’s point. The bill will, for the first time in Scotland, give ministers powers to ensure that the public interest is considered when more than 1,000 hectares of land is being sold. The Scottish ministers will require land to be sold in lots, and those lots will be offered to different buyers, where ministers determine that that could make local communities more sustainable.
The bill also seeks to empower communities with more opportunities to own land through the introduction of advance notice of certain sales from large landholdings of more than 1,000 hectares.
There are a number of different measures in the bill, which I am quite sure will take us forward in the journey towards proper land reform.
Thanks to the radical action that has already been taken on land reform by the Scottish Government, many community groups have been able to successfully purchase estates. Today, there are two potential buyouts at different stages in my constituency—the Bays of Harris and Bernera. How will the next phase of land reform legislation further support such community buyouts, particularly those on crofting land?
Scotland has had a proud history of land reform since devolution, and I wish the communities in Mr Allan’s constituency well in their potential buyouts.
Alongside what I said in my original answer, the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will require greater transparency of land sales from large landholdings so that local communities are informed about when land is to be sold and have greater opportunity to make a community right-to-buy application.
The Government continues to make further improvements to community rights to buy. We also introduced the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill in June, which will give crofters and their communities a greater say in how the land that they work with is used.
Thanks to the campaigning efforts of the local community, the sale of Kinloch castle on the Isle of Rum by NatureScot will be subject to a public interest test that will be applied to potential buyers. The Scottish Government’s Kinloch castle study found that the most important aspects of a sale were long-term contribution to the community, as well as to nature, sustainability, culture and the local economy.
Given that study and the tenacity of the people of Rum, does it not make sense to include in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill a public interest test for the buyers in land transactions?
As I said, the bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am quite sure that Mercedes Villalba will make that point to the cabinet secretary.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to quickly change positions.
Health and Social Care
NHS Grampian (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the chair of NHS Grampian and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05002)
The chair of NHS Grampian participated in the most recent meeting of the NHS Grampian assurance board on 23 September. The board, which provides oversight of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan, comprises Scottish Government officials and NHS Grampian leaders. The agenda for that meeting included the financial position of the local system, engagement between NHS Grampian leaders and the local workforce, and improvement plans for unscheduled care.
As an MSP, I regularly write to NHS Grampian to raise serious concerns on behalf of constituents. The board has now taken to responding to MSPs by saying that it will not meet the 20-day target for a response. However, it is not that the board is not meeting the target—it is missing it completely. Months are going by without my getting any reply.
I raised an issue with the health board on 22 May. It was raised here, in Parliament, with the First Minister on 5 June, and we have still had no response. In another case, I contacted NHS Grampian on 29 April. I have had a number of automatic responses to say that it is still looking into the matter, but there has been no reply. The constituent whom I was advocating on behalf of has now passed away. They had no closure on the issue that they raised with their elected member in Parliament.
Does the minister agree that that is simply unacceptable? What will he do to encourage NHS Grampian to fully respond to those serious concerns?
To give a direct response to the question, yes, I agree that that is unacceptable. I expect complaints or concerns that are raised with national health service boards to be responded to timeously, regardless of whether they have been raised by elected members or by individual patients, and I expect progress to be made in resolving the issues that have been raised.
A new chief executive, Laura Skaife-Knight, has just taken up post at NHS Grampian—she has been in post for just over a week. I will ensure that Mr Ross’s concerns about ensuring that there is better communication with elected members are raised with her. What Mr Ross has raised with me just now is not the standard that I would expect, and I pass on my sincere condolences to the family of his constituent.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the issues that it has been facing. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary outline what work the Scottish Government has done and is doing to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to move quickly through the system?
I agree fully with Karen Adam. The whole purpose of the escalation work with NHS Grampian is to ensure that local patients have access to responsive, high-quality, safe and sustainable services. To that end, we are providing enhanced scrutiny and support to ensure that the health board has robust improvement plans in place and implements them effectively. The Government’s assurance board, which oversees that activity, will actively monitor the development and implementation of several NHS Grampian work strands, from improvements in the overall financial position to specific work regarding better patient flow in line with the recommendations that were made in the independent diagnostic report over the summer.
I am confident that, through those actions, we will soon have a clear plan to stabilise the system in NHS Grampian and set the right conditions for the necessary longer-term transformational work that will be done under the new chief executive.
NHS Operations (Recourse for Patients)
To ask the Scottish Government what recourse is open to patients who have experienced complications following a national health service operation. (S6O-05003)
Any patient who experiences complications following surgery should discuss their concerns with the healthcare professionals who are responsible for their care. In addition, everyone has the right to make a complaint about the NHS treatment that they have received, and their concerns should be addressed at a local level through the NHS complaints-handling procedure. When that is not possible, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is the second and final stage of the process.
Last week, I met a constituent, Patrick Higgins, who underwent a routine operation. He now has severe mobility issues due to a nerve in his leg accidentally being severed. Patrick feels that he is being ignored by the health services that are involved in his care, which cannot give him clarity on why the complication occurred or on what can be done to address it. The cabinet secretary will know that I have written to him this week regarding this case, but what can be done to ensure that the NHS has policies in place to ensure the least stressful and best outcomes for patients in what I understand is the very rare event of complications?
I thank Fulton MacGregor for raising that case with me here, in the chamber, and in writing. I am very sorry to hear of Mr Higgins’s situation, and I will provide a full response to Fulton MacGregor’s correspondence as soon as possible.
Following an adverse event, no patient should be left in the position that they do not know what has happened. When an NHS board undertakes a significant adverse event review, the patient or their family should be kept fully informed throughout that process.
Furthermore, the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 and supporting legislation provide a specific right for people to make complaints and place a duty on NHS boards to thoroughly investigate and respond to any concerns that have been raised. If a person remains dissatisfied following the board’s decision on their complaint, they can ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to consider the complaint.
My constituents Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall have a petition before the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee relating to complications that have arisen from the use of surgical mesh by the NHS. The Scottish Government has previously indicated that it will monitor the progress of the new British Hernia Society registry, to gather more information about the scale of the complications that have arisen from the use of mesh in hernia repairs. I previously submitted freedom of information requests to health boards across Scotland, and I got information from some health boards but not from others. We have the British Hernia Society registry, but will the cabinet secretary ensure that all health boards retain records on complications arising from the use of hernia mesh and that that information is made available to inform decision making?
I thank Katy Clark for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and for the work that her constituents have done through the petitions process. I appeared before the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee last week, and I have found the petitions system to be an excellent means by which members of the public can raise their concerns directly in Parliament. It is a very effective process.
I know that the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has met Katy Clark on the matter, and I will consider the position that she has asked for and make sure that either the minister or I reply in writing.
Hypermobility
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its approach to considering a hypermobility pathway for healthcare, in line with that being brought forward in Wales. (S6O-05004)
I reassure members that the Scottish Government, through the Scottish rare disease implementation board and through wider engagement, is continuing our commitment to improving the lives of people living with rare conditions and enabling resources to support clinicians.
Guidance on assessment and referral for hypermobility is available on Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s right decision service. I am aware that Ehlers-Danlos Support UK has been working with NHS Wales to co-produce a national pathway for those with hypermobility disorders in Wales.
I am waiting to see the outcome of that work and any learning that can be applied to Scotland. We will continue to implement our action plan to support people with rare conditions in Scotland.
As the minister knows, I, too, have been engaging with Ehlers-Danlos Support UK about the many cases that it has come across in which folk have struggled to get access to diagnosis and treatment, often being bounced from one specialist to another without any conclusions. I have appreciated the minister giving her time to speak to me about that previously. Will she speak more to what resources have been allocated or are planned to be allocated for developing and implementing a pathway, whether or not it echoes the pathway in Wales?
I thank Ms Roddick for the work that she has been doing to raise my awareness, and awareness more widely in the Parliament, of hypermobility conditions. As she knows, we have consulted on a long-term conditions framework. I am aware that representations have been made by the rare diseases community, and those are being fed in. Those views will be captured in the review work, and the allocation of resources will be determined as that work progresses, in line with the Scottish Parliament’s budget work.
“Women’s Health Plan”
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress being made in developing the next phase of the “Women’s Health Plan”. (S6O-05005)
We have been speaking with women and girls, gathering evidence and consulting with interested organisations to develop the next phase of the plan. The first stage was completed in 2024, and we want to make sure that the next phase builds on that progress. I am pleased to say that work has been progressing well, and I hope that the next phase will be published in January 2026.
I thank the minister for that update and for the way in which she keeps us all apprised of progress on the plan. I know that the minister will be aware of the situation regarding maternity services in Wigtownshire and the concerns around last week’s decision to keep services at Galloway community hospital closed. That comes despite strong opposition from the Galloway community hospital action group, which fears that the closure puts mothers and babies at risk. The group has described current maternity care in Wigtownshire as being
“like something out of the Middle Ages”.
Even the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, who met the group only two weeks ago, feels that there is a “gap in care”.
Women are fearful, so will the minister join me and other interested parties in meeting the group to listen to its concerns directly and hear the testimonies of some of the mothers affected?
I very much appreciate the dialogue that we have been able to have across the chamber on the “Women’s Health Plan”. I am well aware of the situation with maternity services in Wigtownshire, having met Finlay Carson and Emma Harper.
Safety is the key concern, but I have to remember that the integration joint boards make those decisions. The cabinet secretary is due to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner shortly, and ministers would be happy to engage more with the community.
It is deeply concerning that the United Kingdom Labour Government has been criticised by a coalition of charities that have said that women are
“not a special interest group”
and that they are being deprioritised, with targets cut in half and funding slashed south of the border. A range of women’s health issues appear in my constituency casework regularly. Will the minister further outline how the Scottish Government is prioritising women’s health and ensuring that women are supported through the Scottish National Party Government’s investment?
I recognise what the member says, as my own constituency inbox receives inquiries on women’s health issues.
As we move to the next phase of the plan, we will continue to invest in women’s health. We have provided £8.8 million to target long waits for gynaecology, £4 million to enhance general practitioner services and support access to long-acting reversible contraception, £1.5 million for miscarriage care and £1 million each year to broaden access to cancer screening. We have also invested more than £21 million this financial year by delivering the equally safe fund to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls.
We will continue to do all in our power to seek the best outcomes for the health of women and girls throughout their lives.
Earlier this year, 1,200 women were asked about the impact of the “Women’s Health Plan” and 90 per cent still had concerns about accessing comprehensive health screening for conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and female-specific issues. Many expressed the fear that there is just not enough help for people suffering from menopause. What will be different about the next phase of the plan that will mean that it will ensure that the concerns of women, including those of my constituents in Glasgow, are addressed?
I welcome Annie Wells to her shadow portfolio on women’s health and to the group where we have been sharing progress in that area.
It is important to recognise that Scotland was the first of the four nations to produce a women’s health plan. We recognise that we have a distance to go, but with the leadership that we have in the Scottish Government, the cross-party support, and we should not forget the amazing support of the women’s health champion Professor Anna Glasier, we are making a difference. We have been very clear about ensuring that we are bringing women of all ages into the work on the next phase of the plan, and I hope that Annie Wells can welcome it when it is launched in January next year, as I do.
Spinal Injuries (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what provisions are in place to support people in hospitals and care settings who have serious spinal injuries resulting in paralysis from the neck down. (S6O-05006)
The Queen Elizabeth national spinal injuries unit in Glasgow is responsible for the acute and lifelong care of all adult patients with traumatic and non-progressive spinal cord injury. We are committed to ensuring that all adults who require rehabilitation in all settings have timely access to the right services at the right time.
The once for Scotland rehabilitation approach sets out commitments that will shape a national programme of improvement work, under which national health service boards will be expected to demonstrate rehabilitation provision in a variety of settings, including in-patient and community settings, and at a range of intensities.
My constituent, Graham Wright, suffered a freak accident last year. His spine was paralysed from the neck down. Sadly, he died recently. Although his wife had praise for the three months that he spent in the spinal unit at Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, the planned transfer to Borders general hospital exposed dreadful deficiencies in its ability to look after him, including not even knowing initially how to use a hoist.
Will the cabinet secretary meet my constituent to hear her experience, as it is disturbing that in an area known for rugby, horse-riding and agriculture, where a spinal injury might not be so uncommon, the appropriate training for spinal injuries appears to be lacking in the local hospital?
I am grateful to Christine Grahame for raising the case. I am sorry to hear of Mr Wright’s passing, and I offer my sincere condolences to his family for their loss. I know personally about the truly remarkable specialist care that is provided at the spinal injuries unit at Queen Elizabeth university hospital, because my father was a patient there.
I am concerned by the point about Borders general hospital that Ms Grahame has raised. I expect national health service boards to provide high-quality, person-centred care and support for all people. It is always disappointing to hear of instances where that care has fallen short of the standard that is expected.
I hope that Christine Grahame will understand and appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. However, I welcome a discussion to better understand the circumstances, and I invite her to write to me with further details so that we can arrange a meeting to explore them fully.
NHS Dumfries and Galloway (Financial Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support NHS Dumfries and Galloway in addressing financial pressures. (S6O-05007)
Following NHS Dumfries and Galloway’s escalation for finance, the Scottish Government has provided increased oversight and engagement to ensure that the board is provided with support that is commensurate with its financial circumstances.
So far, that has included an on-going whole clinical services review, which involves NHS Dumfries and Galloway closely collaborating with the Scottish Government in order to identify changes to its models of care and improve sustainability while protecting patient outcomes. In addition, NHS Dumfries and Galloway has received £7.4 million of additional funding to support its financial position.
Any additional money is welcome, but with a record deficit of £58 million, as predicted by the health and social care partnership for 2025-26, the board’s financial position continues to deteriorate.
Local communities have real concerns about the impact of drastic reductions in spending. Fundamentally, it will not be possible to save such a sum without reducing services, which will leave rural communities even more isolated. Cost pressures are starting to dictate services, rather than, as the cabinet secretary talked about, services becoming more patient led.
When such situations arise, I expect us to move to a position in which we have services that are sustainable but that ensure the needs of the population that they serve are being met. Yes, difficult decisions will be required across not only our health services but our public services in general, because of the corrosive impact that years of high inflation have had on our spendability, as well as the demand that is coming through.
That is why it is so important that we use tools, such as the population health framework that we have set out, to shift the balance of care, reform our health and social care services, reduce demand and address demand more directly. I will continue to work with NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and its chief executive Julie White, to ensure that that will be the case in Dumfries and Galloway as it is elsewhere.
Dentistry (Skilled Worker Visa)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on Scotland’s dentistry sector of the United Kingdom Labour Administration’s recent changes to the skilled worker visa. (S6O-05008)
Home Office changes to skilled worker visas mean that dental care professionals such as therapists, hygienists, technicians and nurses are no longer supported. According to the General Dental Council, more than one fifth of new applicants in 2024, which is more than 2,000 workers, were from non-UK backgrounds.
It is clearer than ever that the UK Government is not interested in Scotland’s healthcare sector’s migration needs. I am sure that Jackie Dunbar will agree that the only way that Scotland can create the immigration system that it needs is with full powers as an independent country.
I totally agree with the minister. It is clear that the UK Labour Government is determined to lurch even more to the right on immigration than even the Tories did while in power. That is having a hugely damaging impact on constituencies such as mine that rely on skilled workers in health and social care.
What assessment has been made of the harms that those Labour policies are having on the wider health and social care sector, including dentistry? Will the minister join me in calling for the repeal of the damaging policies by this reckless UK Labour Government?
I want to let members know that, in August, I wrote to Stephen Kinnock, the Minister of State for Care, to highlight our concerns at a time of continued pressure on the dental workforce. The UK Labour Government’s decision will have consequences for hard-working people who make such a valuable contribution to our communities and our healthcare system. The Scottish Government will continue to call on the UK Government to reverse the proposals.
The UK Government has not worked with us on developing a Scottish visa or a Scottish graduate visa route, despite repeated asks. We are clear that Scotland should have an immigration system that meets Scotland’s economic and demographic needs. The best way for Scotland to do that is to be an independent country.
The minister will be aware that more than 300 dentists have taken early retirement since 2020, at the same time as 36,000 patients have been forced to go private. It is clear that the funding model is still not working. The Scottish Dental Association reports that nine out of 10 dentists say that the national health service is not an attractive place to build and maintain a career and that further reform is needed. Will the Government listen to them, stop more dentists leaving the NHS and ensure that our rural areas are not left as dental deserts?
I made it clear in November 2023, when we introduced the new payment system for dentists—which has been welcomed by dentists—that that was the start of a journey. We are talking about governance and training, and we provided more investment in dentistry in the most recent budget, which the Conservatives did not support. We are moving along with dentists, whom I thank for their work in ensuring that Scotland’s teeth health is as good as it can be.
Can we do more? Yes. Are we doing more? Yes.
The minister is not living in reality. The reality is that we are losing NHS dentists. The Cupar Dentist is providing an emergency service only, and it has been like that for months. We have lost dentists in Newburgh, Leven and Glenrothes. In many parts of Fife, people simply cannot get treatment. The minister surely has to accept that the payment review that she introduced in November 2023 is just not working. When will she get back to reality?
I am living in reality. The conversations that I have had with a number of dentists show that they are pleased with the funding change that we introduced two years ago. However, as I said to Mr Whittle, do we have to do more? Yes, we do.
Unfortunately, we have one hand tied behind our back, given that the UK Government has changed visa allowances, which affects our ability to ensure that people can come into the country so that we have the right dental teams. We are investing in education to open up more places for dentists in Scotland. I point out that NHS Fife has benefited from the Scottish dental access initiative, which enables more dentists to open up practices in Fife. I regularly have such conversations with NHS Fife.
I call Paul Sweeney, who joins us online, to ask a brief supplementary question.
I give one last call for Paul Sweeney. Are you there?
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I ask for a brief supplementary question. We have now lost a bit of time.
We know that the problems with NHS dentistry are caused primarily by dentists leaving the NHS to go private. The Scottish Government’s response has been to promise to train roughly 10 extra dentists a year, while hundreds of migrant dentists are unable to work as NHS dentists because of huge waiting lists to access conversion training. Will the minister stop blaming the UK Government over a marginal dispute about skilled worker visas and take responsibility for creating an effective training and retention plan to serve the ambitions of Scotland?
I politely point out to Mr Sweeney that the waiting list for dentists from international countries to sit the examinations is down to the use of reserved powers. Your minister—
Always speak through the chair.
My apologies. The Minister of State for Care made a decision not to follow up on the request that we and the other devolved nations made. I call on Mr Sweeney to write to Mr Kinnock to try to persuade him of the need to get more dentists into this country.
I can squeeze in question 8, but I need brief questions and brief responses.
Alcohol-specific Deaths
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland remain above 1,000 for the 12th year in a row. (S6O-05009)
The first thing to say is that behind those figures are individuals who have lost their lives, families who are in mourning and communities that are feeling the loss of those people.
The number of alcohol-specific deaths fell by 7 per cent to 1,185 in 2024, which is the lowest that it has been since 2019. The decrease is welcome, but we know that the number of deaths remains far too high and that all of them are preventable. The Scottish Government is committed to tackling alcohol harm and has allocated more than £160 million to alcohol and drug initiatives and services in 2025-26. Last year, we increased the minimum unit price as part of our world-leading strategy to 65p, and we expanded access to treatment, including residential rehabilitation. As a refreshed alcohol and drug strategic plan develops, I will continue to act, guided by evidence, to reduce harm and to support those who are affected.
Any fall in the number of deaths is welcome, but Alcohol Focus Scotland says that the level of deaths is “appallingly high” and that it is more than double what it was 30 years ago. In response to that, the minister said in an interview last week that she was considering increasing alcohol prices annually, in line with inflation. Will the minister confirm whether that is Government policy? Rather than doubling down on hard-working Scots with even more tax, why will the Government not take a positive approach, back our Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 next week and enshrine in law the right for treatment for those who are struggling with alcohol addiction?
The minimum unit pricing policy is significant and world leading. It is vitally important that the minimum unit price is uprated on a regular basis to ensure that it is impactful. What I said in the interview last week was that automatic uprating was a reasonable idea to consider. Although the formula would be hotly contested and debated, it would be a useful thing to do. It is not yet Government policy; we are considering how to proceed with it. Undoubtedly, as the prices of everything increase, the minimum unit price will need to increase.
We will have the stage 1 debate on the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill next week. I recognise that the Parliament has had its say through the lead committee’s report on the bill. The committee cannot commend the bill to the Parliament because there are so many flaws in it. However, we will certainly listen to the debate and make our position clear next week.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions.