Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 3, 2022

Official Report 1151KB pdf

---

General Question Time

---

Qualifications and Assessment

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the consultation on the future of qualifications and assessment. (S6O-01500)

Professor Hayward is leading an independent review on the future of qualifications and assessment. To inform that review, a public consultation was launched on 21 October and it will close on 16 December. The public consultation invites views on a range of topics, including the balance between exams and other forms of assessment, and how a wider range of learners’ achievements can be recognised.

I encourage everyone with an interest to have their say. Professor Hayward is due to submit a final report for ministers to consider in March 2023. As previously made clear to Parliament, externally assessed examinations will remain part of any new system.

Last week saw the launch of the consultation into the future of exams and qualifications in Scotland. Only three of 59 members of the education reform board are teachers, and there are no parent representatives.

What assurance can the cabinet secretary give that the views of parents, pupils and teachers will not be ignored if they happen to disagree with the reforms that are proposed by others?

Oh dear. I fear that Pam Gosal has come to the chamber with a great lack of understanding of the education reform work that is going on. The board whose membership she refers to concerns the reform of the three national agencies. Professor Hayward’s work, which is independent of Government, is being supported by an independent review group that includes learners, parents, carers, education staff and college and university representatives. I hope that, now that I have clarified that, Ms Gosal will be satisfied that parents, carers, education staff and college and university representatives are already included.

---

Accommodation (Displaced People from Ukraine)

To ask the Scottish Government what support is available to displaced people from Ukraine who are moving from temporary accommodation into permanent housing. (S6O-01501)

Our aim is to improve the performance of the supersponsor scheme, and this week we published 16 interventions following a review of the scheme. We want to empower those arriving with clear advice, support and improved access to longer-term housing options, thereby reducing dependency on short-term and temporary accommodation. That is why we have put in place up to £50 million for our Ukraine longer-term capital fund to increase the overall supply of housing stock. That has already provided more than £400,000 to North Ayrshire Council and £6 million to Aberdeen City Council.

I have seen at first hand how communities and local authorities across my region, from Killin to Rosyth, are working tirelessly to try to find long-term housing solutions for displaced Ukrainians who have found sanctuary in Scotland. However, it is critically important that any housing offer empowers our new Ukrainian neighbours to have choices over their next steps.

I welcomed Tuesday’s statement by the Minister with special responsibility for Refugees from Ukraine, but will the cabinet secretary outline what further support will be made available specifically to local authorities such as Stirling Council to support the displaced Ukrainians to access that housing and also, critically, to co-ordinate efforts with local communities who have their own interests with regard to finding solutions for their Ukrainian neighbours and are engaged in their own efforts to do so?

We have provided £11.2 million of funding to increase the capacity of local authority resettlement teams, to support the refurbishment of properties and to enhance the pace of host checks and matching. I encourage local authorities to ensure that they are making full use of that funding. We are encouraging all local authorities and registered social landlords to consider what properties in their area could be brought back into use, and I encourage Mark Ruskell to discuss that fund with local authorities in his region, in order to identify opportunities to make best use of the funding.

Mark Ruskell also made a very important point about the role of communities. The warm, welcoming response from communities throughout Scotland has been absolutely amazing. We want to encourage the continuation of that and we want solutions that are proposed by communities to be listened to and acted on where that is appropriate.

---

General Practitioners (Workload)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help general practitioners manage their workloads. (S6O-01502)

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, general practice is being strengthened significantly. We are committed to increasing the number of GPs in Scotland by 800 by the end of 2027, and we are making good progress towards that target. We have also now recruited 3,220 whole-time-equivalent healthcare professionals, such as community nurses and physiotherapists, into multidisciplinary teams across practices. Local evaluation shows that the expanded MDTs are freeing up GP capacity and allowing a focus on patients with more complex conditions. That is also reducing multiple appointments for the same issue, and it is associated with high staff and patient satisfaction.

Almost every MSP in the chamber will have constituents who are unable to get an appointment with a GP. Instead of helping to address that issue, the cabinet secretary has cut GP sustainability payments by around £5 million. Considering the tremendous workload that GPs are under, how can the Scottish Government justify that?

I remind Alexander Stewart that investment in general practice is going up, not down. We are investing at least £170 million a year in growing primary care multidisciplinary teams. That is up by £15 million from last year. We are supporting general practice, and we know and have heard anecdotally that face-to-face appointments are beginning to increase—although I accept that that is not to the level that some people would like. I have therefore asked GP practices that are not offering pre-bookable appointments to ensure that they are offering them.

I remind Alexander Stewart that the reason why we are having to reprofile money within health is, in large part, to respond to his party’s economic incompetence. The health budget is worth £650 million less just due to inflation. Pay rises are way in excess of what we budgeted for because of the Tory cost crisis. I say to Alexander Stewart: please do not come here and shed crocodile tears about primary care when it was your party’s disastrous stewardship of the United Kingdom economy that caused such devastating impacts in the first place.

Constituents have advised me that, post-Covid, in certain—only certain—GP practices, they are experiencing barriers to booking face-to-face appointments because the practices have changed their process so that there are online consultation forms, which are difficult for some constituents to use. Is the cabinet secretary aware of that, and will he comment on it?

I am aware of that, and I absolutely accept what Christine Grahame said. As I said in my last response, I have spoken to the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners about that matter. That is why I came to the Parliament a number of weeks ago to say that I will personally be in contact with every single GP practice to ensure that pre-bookable appointments are also available to help with the face-to-face issue.

On online appointments and booking, I will ensure that I reach back in to our key stakeholders, such as the BMA and the RCGP, to ensure that those who are digitally excluded are not left out of getting face-to-face appointments, including GP appointments.

Last week, I met a respected GP in the south of Scotland who trains the next generation of doctors. The GP was blunt with me: he said that he and his colleagues are burnt out from not only the impact of the pandemic but the strain that GPs have been under for years. Many GPs are now at breaking point and are seriously considering early retirement. The Scottish Government needs to show GPs that it is serious about getting primary care services right. Given the announcement yesterday, does the cabinet secretary not fear that that will act as a catalyst for early retirement by GPs?

Martin Whitfield has raised a very important point. When I met Dr Andrew Buist from the BMA earlier this week, he said a similar thing about GPs’ burnout and workload. That is why it is so important that we continue to invest in the multidisciplinary team model. Funding for that continues. Recruiting 3,220 healthcare staff as part of the multidisciplinary team model will help to ease and alleviate some of the workload from general practice.

I say to Martin Whitfield that the reason why we are having to reprofile some of that money—which is, of course, staying within health—is to help us to ensure that we can put forward the best pay deal possible for our healthcare staff in these challenging times.

---

Women’s Health Group

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of the women’s health group, including when it will next meet. (S6O-01503)

The women’s health group was established in February 2020 to develop a women’s health plan. It was disbanded following the publication of our plan on 20 August 2021.

The women’s health plan implementation programme board was established in January of this year to oversee the delivery of the plan. Chaired by Professor Marion Bain, the deputy chief medical officer, the board brings together a range of organisations to ensure that the actions in the plan are implemented effectively, with continued input and influence from women themselves.

The board meets quarterly and it last met yesterday. The terms of reference and other information about the board are available on the Scottish Government’s website.

Six months ago, I was advised that the Government is working with the Scottish perinatal network to examine adoption of the placental growth factor test for pregnant women in order to detect pre-eclampsia, which can kill both mother and baby or lead to further health risks later in life.

Such tragedies can now be prevented by the use of those simple and reliable tests, which are already in use in places from England to Sierra Leone. Can the cabinet secretary therefore advise us on progress in rolling out PLGF tests in Scotland?

First, I recognise the interest that Kenneth Gibson has had in this issue for not just many months but many years. Progress has been made—the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that women receive high-quality, safe care, including in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia.

Although national health service boards in Scotland can already choose to offer placental growth factor testing should they wish to do so, we continue to progress that work with the Scottish perinatal network. We have also approached the Scottish health technologies group, which provides advice to NHS Scotland on the use of new and existing technologies. That group started work last month on considering the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on PLGF testing and will produce an adapted version of the guidance for Scotland, with recommendations.

The SHTG has started consulting the clinical community, patients’ organisations and wider stakeholders, and that work is expected to be completed by spring 2023. However, on the back of the member’s question, I will explore whether any further pace can be injected into the process, given how important we know the tests can be.

---

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Waiting Times)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is reducing waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services. (S6O-01504)

We are setting the conditions needed for long-term, sustainable improvement to the CAMHS systems.

In the last quarter, we saw an 8.6 per cent drop in the number of waits over 18 weeks. However, I recognise that performance against the national waiting time standard varies across health boards. We are directing tailored support to boards that are not on track to meet the standard, providing access to professional advice and ensuring that they have robust improvement plans in place. We are monitoring progress closely.

I have also met recently with the boards that are furthest away from achieving the standard to discuss my concerns and my expectations for improvement.

I have previously written to the minister about my constituent John, who lives in East Dunbartonshire. John’s nine-year-old son has been self-harming. He waited six months from referral until initial assessment by CAMHS. He was then told that it would be a further year until a support plan was in place. John’s younger son is now imitating his brother’s behaviour. The entire family are at their wits’ end.

Thousands of children are on waiting lists despite the Scottish Government repeatedly promising to fix the situation. Can the minister explain to John why children are continuing to wait so long to get the proper support plans that they need?

Neither John nor his son should be put in that position and I will write again to Mr Bibby about that situation. We want young people to be treated as quickly as possible; we also want to put in place a system in which there is not overreliance on acute services and we are able to deal with things before they reach that stage.

We are working very hard and have invested very heavily in CAMH services. Obviously, there has been an impact because of the Covid pandemic, but we are seeing progress. I hope that that progress continues, and I will write to Mr Bibby.

---

Rent Freeze (Affordable Housing)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that affordable housing development plans have been put on hold because of its rent freeze. (S6O-01505)

Scotland is significantly ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in providing affordable housing, having delivered almost 113,000 affordable homes since 2007, more than 79,000 of which were for social rent. We recognise the impact of high interest rates and high material and labour costs, which is why we continue to operate a flexible grant system, which we expect will support the continued delivery of the affordable homes target.

In advance of the passage of the emergency legislation, we set up a working group with social landlords to help assess the options for keeping rents affordable for tenants beyond 31 March 2023 in the light of the cost of living crisis. That work is continuing, and during the passage of the bill, we further committed to giving clarity and certainty to social landlords on rent setting no later than 14 January 2023.

The cabinet secretary has failed to answer the question. Lord Willie Haughey recently announced that his plans to spend more than £1 billion on building 11,000 affordable homes in Scotland had been scrapped. Lord Haughey specifically said that, because of Patrick Harvie’s rent freeze bill, he would have to “put things on hold”. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the Scottish National Party Government’s rent freeze has made the housing crisis in Scotland worse, not better?

I certainly recognise, once again, the laissez-faire attitude of the Tories in opposing measures to help tenants with rent increases during a cost of living crisis—[Interruption.]

Members! Thank you.

—in the same way as they opposed measures to restrict the loss of housing to short-term holiday lets. They have no ideas and no solutions—it is just opposition for opposition’s sake. However, they refuse to take responsibility for the disastrous economic policies of the Tory Government, leading to high interest rates—[Interruption.]

We will hear the cabinet secretary.

Those high interest rates have had the biggest impact on the social rented sector and the affordable housing supply programme. As ever, there is total hypocrisy from the Tories.

---

Agriculture Bill (Consultation)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consultation on a new agriculture bill. (S6O-01506)

The Scottish Government launched our consultation entitled “Delivering our Vision for Scottish Agriculture: Proposals for a new Agriculture Bill” on 29 August. The consultation closes on 21 November, and all members of the public are encouraged to submit responses. Alongside the consultation, we are hosting a number of events to hear views from across the country on what needs to feature in the bill to transform how we support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

Yesterday, hundreds of farmers with a handful of tractors rallied outside the Parliament to highlight the issues that are facing farmers across Scotland. They feel let down by a Scottish National Party-Green coalition that simply does not understand their concerns. Their disdain for the Bute house agreement was especially clear. [Interruption.]

Can we please hear Ms Hamilton?

Given the views that were expressed by farmers yesterday, does the minister agree that her Green coalition partners have no understanding of the needs of rural Scotland?

I am not even sure where to begin with that question, except to say—[Interruption.]—that farmers and food producers in Scotland are quite right to come to the Parliament to speak to their representatives. The fact of the matter is that, while I stand here answering the question, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands is right now with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, where she is proactively engaging with the industry to design future policy. Whether on Brexit, on utter economic incompetence or on the Tories’ complete refusal to listen to the industry—[Interruption.]

Members! Thank you.

—it is the member’s party in government that is repeatedly and profoundly letting down Scotland’s food producers.

It never ceases to amaze me when the Tories try to promote themselves as the party that stands up for farmers. They can say what they like about their concerns and support for agriculture, but where was that support and that concern when they opposed this Parliament’s withholding consent to the Subsidy Control Act 2022? [Interruption.]

Thank you. We will hear Mr Fairlie.

The hypocrisy is utterly galling. NFU Scotland was clear in its concerns about the potential impact on farmers of that legislation, which could have a profound and fundamental impact on our ability to tailor support to the specific needs of Scotland’s farmers, whom the Tories are supposed to represent. Does the minister agree that, while the other parties can be relied upon to play politics, when it comes down to the facts the SNP can be relied on to safeguard and deliver on the interests of Scottish agriculture?

I completely agree with Jim Fairlie, who is a very useful voice for the farming industry in the Parliament. [Interruption.]

Members, can we make sure that we can hear all members when they are speaking?

The inclusion of agricultural support in the scope of the United Kingdom Subsidy Control Act 2022 is unnecessary and risks undermining the agricultural support framework. Farmers and crofters in Scotland face challenges that are not found elsewhere in the UK, but the legislation constrains our and the Parliament’s ability to develop future policies that are tailored to meet those challenges. However, we remain fully committed to delivering our vision for agriculture and implementing a framework that delivers both high-quality food production and empowers Scotland’s farmers and food producers to play their very important role in mitigating climate change and supporting nature recovery in Scotland. We will get on with that job.