Official Report 309KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Outdoor Access and Dog Walking
To ask the Scottish Government how it and its partner agencies promote and raise awareness of the need for responsible outdoor access and dog walking to reduce any instances of livestock worrying and damage. (S6O-05579)
I very much thank Bob Doris for raising this issue, because the Scottish Government clearly recognises the distress and the serious welfare and financial implications of livestock worrying for people and for the stock. The Scottish Government supported the introduction of legislation to address those issues. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 gained royal assent on 5 May 2021 and came into force on 5 November 2021. Under the 2021 act, owners of dogs that attack or worry livestock can be fined up to £40,000 or face a prison sentence of up to 12 months. The small minority who do not treat livestock with respect and care must be held accountable, and consequences must appropriately reflect the severity of their crime.
Education is a key factor in prevention of livestock worrying incidents and the associated unnecessary suffering for all who are involved. Messaging is promoted widely on social media by NatureScot as part of on-going communication campaigns to promote responsible behaviour for dog owners.
Does the minister agree with me about the importance of awareness raising, given the serious welfare impacts, in particular for sheep at lambing time around this time of year? Does he agree that there is a need to emphasise the shared interests of stakeholders such as NFU Scotland and Ramblers Scotland in enhanced education and engagement with the public on access rights and responsibilities? Will he commit to working with key organisations such as those that I mentioned to ensure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities and of the consequences of not doing the right thing?
Bob Doris is absolutely correct and, as I said, I am delighted that he has brought the subject up, in particular as we go into lambing season. The worrying of livestock by dogs is completely unacceptable, and we, as a Government, take it very seriously. We know that it is a particular problem as we go into the lambing season, and the Scottish outdoor access code sets out how to exercise rights and responsibilities when walking dogs in the countryside. We will continue to work with NatureScot, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and any other organisation, including NFUS and Ramblers Scotland, to raise awareness of this important issue.
Following a stakeholder summit in 2024, we established the expert advisory group on dog control and dog welfare, comprising key stakeholders, to make recommendations on a number of issues relating to dog control. The group has established a number of sub-groups focusing on specific topics, including one on prevention, education and communication.
Finally—if the Deputy Presiding Officer will allow me just one second—I wish our sheep shearers Gavin Mutch, Hamish Mitchell, Katie O’Sullivan, Rosie Keenan, Willie Craig and Murray Craig, who are currently competing in the New Zealand golden shears competition, all the very best of luck.
Bob Doris’s question shows that livestock worrying is an issue not just for rural communities but for all of Scotland, urban and rural. With lambing season already in progress in many areas of Scotland, and the wee good turn in the weather this spring, the risks for livestock are at their highest. Can the minister therefore reassure my constituents that the full panoply of legal sanctions, including the powers available under the 2021 act, will be deployed by the authorities against those who ignore sensible and reasonable advice about keeping dogs under control, so that havoc is not caused to livestock in this season?
As the member knows, decisions by the judiciary on how they handle sentences are entirely up to them. However, I make this plea to everyone who is walking dogs in the countryside over the spring period, when lambing and calving is going on: please keep control of your dogs, keep them on a lead if possible and make sure that you stay away from breeding livestock.
I recently held a round-table meeting with local stakeholders to discuss how best to promote responsible use of the outdoor access code to combat irresponsible dog ownership, livestock worrying and disturbance to ground-nesting birds. What more can the Scottish Government do to support local authorities and rural stakeholders in their role in education about the matter?
I am delighted that Beatrice Wishart has carried out that work, because the more widely that we spread the word that there are serious consequences to people walking their dogs, the better. People often say, “My dog wouldn’t do that, because my dog is nice and friendly. It wouldn’t harm a fly”. However, a dog’s instincts mean that, as soon as it starts chasing behaviour, it can go from being playful, to a little bit of rough and tumble, to worrying, before the owner knows what has happened. I urge people not to think that, just because their dog has a lovely nature, it will not be a sheep worrier. Such behaviour can get the dog shot and have very serious consequences for the owner.
Question 2 has not been lodged.
“Who Owns Scotland 2025”
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report, “Who Owns Scotland 2025”. (S6O-05581)
I welcome the report’s contribution to the land reform debate. It highlights that land ownership in Scotland is still deeply unequal. That issue is hundreds of years in the making, and addressing it will not be quick or easy.
The recent Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 is a huge step forward. Once implemented, ministers will have lotting powers to split up large landholdings when they are being sold, provided that it is in the public interest to do so. The 2025 act will also ensure that communities can receive advance notification of impending sales or transfers of land by large landholders.
In 2024, half of Scotland’s privately owned rural land was in the hands of 421 entities. That is now down to 408 individuals or companies. Does the Scottish Government agree that land ownership is going backwards?
I agree with Foysol Choudhury in the sense that the pattern that we have seen is going in completely the wrong direction; it is not the direction that we want to see it going in. However, I emphasise exactly what I outlined in my initial answer about the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. Although it has not yet been implemented, it is a massive step forward when it comes to land ownership and land reform in Scotland more generally.
The Scottish Government is making significant interventions for the first time, and that includes our having the ability to intervene directly in the land market. I believe that we are taking steps in the right direction. Although the 2025 act will have to be implemented before we can hope to see any improvement, I look forward to seeing how that develops in the coming years and any impacts that it might have.
Will the cabinet secretary outline a summary of the ways in which the concentrated patterns of land ownership in Scotland are being tackled, and community ownership encouraged, thanks to the Scottish National Party Government?
We know that the concentration of land ownership in Scotland is a massive issue. Through some of the landmark powers that we already have, we are seeing steps in the right direction when it comes to community ownership. Over recent years, the number of assets in community ownership has risen, and it has done so through each year of this parliamentary session. The most recent information that we have shows that more than 213,000 hectares of land are in community ownership; they are owned by more than 500 groups across Scotland.
It is also important to remember the mechanism by which we enable people to access or consider community ownership, which is the Scottish land fund. Since the latest fund opened in 2021, the committee of the Scottish land fund has awarded a total of £32.4 million to more than 249 community groups. We are supporting that community ownership because it has the power to be transformative for local communities, whether they are in urban or rural Scotland.
The “Who Owns Scotland 2025” report shows that only 2.8 per cent of rural land in Scotland is owned by community groups. The Scottish Government can do far more to make community ownership of land easier. The cabinet secretary mentioned some financial support, which could go further. However, what action is the Scottish Government taking to provide dedicated legal and structural support for community land purchases?
Mercedes Villalba raises an important point. She is absolutely right that there is more that we can do. A number of powers are available to communities to take ownership of assets or land in the areas where they live. However, we know that some of those powers have been very rarely used, and that groups have found them challenging to get to grips with. Another important piece of work that we have taken forward is the community right to buy review, which is about getting to grips with exactly the issues that Mercedes Villalba raises in her question.
We have undertaken that work over the past couple of years, and it was raised during discussions on the 2025 act. I hope to publish the outcome of the review in the coming weeks. I hope that that will provide further recommendations for the next Government to take forward and implement.
Ptarmigan (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the joint review with the United Kingdom Government regarding the potential removal of ptarmigan from schedule 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (S6O-05582)
The Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments are currently working on a draft joint consultation document, which will include proposed changes following our consideration of NatureScot’s assessment of the bird species listed in schedule 2 to the 1981 act. We expect to publish the consultation document over the coming weeks once it has been finalised, alongside NatureScot’s report.
Maybe the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but we do not know how many ptarmigan there are, and we do not know how many are being killed. There are no ptarmigan in England and no ptarmigan in Wales. This is a Scottish problem. Is the minister happy that ptarmigan get shot in August?
We are currently carrying out the review. We have had this debate for a number of years, now. We can look at the matter once we get to the end of the review period and we publish the results of the review.
The member asked about shooting ptarmigan in August. The season for ptarmigan is from 11 August to 11 December—it is a short open season. There is no need to ban the shooting of ptarmigan right now, because there is no shooting going on. We will publish the review and, once we have done so, we will decide what to do next.
Deer Management
To ask the Scottish Government how proposed changes to deer management policy will affect land use and biodiversity across Scotland. (S6O-05583)
Good, sustainable deer management is integral to our effectiveness in addressing biodiversity loss and protecting and restoring the natural environment. That is why we brought forward reforms to the deer legislation through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and will develop a national deer management plan in collaboration with the sector that addresses the barriers to managing deer across Scotland. We continue to trial incentive schemes and we will work closely with the venison sector in developing those further.
It is about achieving a balance, and our work on deer management is supported and underpinned by the objectives that are included in the Scottish biodiversity strategy.
Deer numbers have doubled since the 1990s and the population is estimated to be close to 1 million. Deer are now so numerous that, even in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands, there are regular near misses as deer run across the A70. With an improved deer management scheme and a venison plan helping to create more business opportunities, what could the impact be on the rural economy?
The improved deer management legislative framework and strengthened regulatory powers that were introduced through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill will deliver opportunities for rural communities and create significant demand for skilled workers who are able to carry out the increased management that is needed and to support nature restoration.
Expanding Scotland’s deer management capacity will be essential to supporting a sustainable venison supply chain to ensure that rural communities benefit from new business, employment and training opportunities. Reducing overgrazing pressure from deer will lower losses to forestry and agriculture, improve woodland regeneration and, importantly, help to reduce road traffic collisions, which Gordon MacDonald mentioned, and their associated economic costs to rural areas.
If we want healthy communities, sustainable food production and vibrant rural industries in the future, we have to invest now in thriving ecosystems and in the skilled workforce that is required to manage them.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a farm in Moray, where I control deer.
Does the minister agree that deer management on the uplands of Scotland is now, in most cases, covered by deer management plans and that the problems are in the woods and the low grounds? Does the minister also agree that, rather than Forestry and Land Scotland using contracted stalkers, it would be better to have full-time employees doing proper deer management rather than just contract killing?
I disagree with that point. We need a range of options across the sector. It is not just roe deer or deer in lowland Scotland that we are talking about—it is deer across all areas. Deer will be overgrazing in some areas and undergrazing in others.
I get the point that the situation is varied, but demonising contractors is not helpful. They have to do a very difficult job. They might be getting paid more than full-time employees, but they work incredibly hard and are doing a very difficult job that is required by the Scottish Government to allow us to achieve our ambitions.
Tree Equity (Urban Areas)
To ask the Scottish Government what renewed action it will take to improve tree equity in Scotland’s urban areas. (S6O-05584)
The Scottish Government is committed to improving tree equity so that more communities, particularly those with limited existing tree cover, can enjoy the full range of benefits that are provided by urban trees and woodlands.
Through our forestry grants and support for the Clyde, Forth and Fife climate forests, we are supporting tree-planting projects across towns and cities in central Scotland, with a focus on areas that have the greatest need for trees. When we review future support mechanisms, tree equity will remain an important consideration, to ensure that we effectively address inequalities in access to urban woodlands and trees.
More than a quarter of Glasgow’s neighbourhoods have less than 10 per cent tree canopy cover, and those areas have some of the lowest tree equity scores in Scotland. Almost 40 per cent of our neighbourhoods are considered to be a high priority for action to improve tree equity. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s answer, but what action will she take for Glasgow specifically to make sure that the protection, management and expansion of Scotland’s urban trees and woods will benefit those in the Glasgow community?
As I hope I was able to outline in my initial response to Annie Wells, the intention is very much to focus on the cities and areas in which there is less tree cover and where more can be done. We are constantly looking at our support and how we can better provide it. I mentioned the Clyde climate forest, which we have invested in.
I also want to emphasise that the Government has worked with local authorities for more than 20 years to expand and manage urban woodlands. That has included funding project officers to try to identify where the opportunities are and then to go on and deliver them. We are also providing support through the woods in and around towns grants, which are under the forestry grant scheme.
Annie Wells raises an important point. We are always striving to do more and to consider how we can use funding mechanisms in a way that ensures that we are expanding the benefits of our trees and woodlands to urban parts of Scotland, too.
Future Farming Investment Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government when the new future farming investment scheme will be open for applications. (S6O-05585)
The First Minister announced that the Scottish Government has allocated another £14.25 million to a second round of the future farming investment scheme for the 2026-27 financial year. That builds on the £21.4m that was delivered through the first round of FFIS. The application date for the next round has not yet been set. We are carefully reviewing the scheme and will engage with industry stakeholders to discuss how the scheme could be improved upon.
I hope that the Government is carefully reviewing the scheme, because many in the sector, particularly crofters and tenant farmers, feel that they were badly let down. What is the Government going to change and improve this time round to make sure that the outcome for those people will be what is advised? Last time round, many people spent a lot of time filling in applications, and that time was considered to have been wasted.
First, crofting has a range of specific schemes that crofters can make applications to. Secondly, on the future farming investment scheme, we are still working out why people did not pick up the information that they needed to pick up and why it was not clear enough to them, despite the fact that the information about what should have been included when making the applications was in the guidance. We will work out how to make that simpler for people and, once we have completed that work, we will bring the scheme forward.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a partner in a farming business.
The Scottish Government found itself forced into providing a drip feed of information about the chaotic introduction of round 1 of the scheme, whether through parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests or information that came directly from applicants. Does the minister intend that to be the case with round 2, or will he commit to proactively publishing—in good time—the sort of data on round 2 that I and other colleagues attempted to compel through amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which he and his party colleagues joined in voted down?
I reject the idea that the Government was forced into doing anything. We voluntarily put up a £21.5 million fund to help investment in farming. As I just stated to Willie Rennie, we are currently considering how the scheme operated last time and how we can make improvements. We are looking to make sure that there are clear instructions on how people should read the forms and fill them in. That way, I hope that the people who want to get the money will get it at the right time.
Does the minister agree that the £21.4 million investment, which will be augmented by at least a further £14.25 million this financial year, in addition to the most generous direct support package in the UK, highlights that positive action is being taken to invest in our rural businesses, which is in stark contrast to a UK Labour Government that is turning its back on our food and our farming?
Karen Adam is absolutely correct. Despite an extremely challenging budget situation, the Scottish Government will invest more than £660 million in support for our farmers and crofters under the Scottish Government’s budget for 2026-27, which is similar to the amount that was allocated for 2025-26.
The support that we deliver through the FFIS is in addition to the most generous package of support on these islands, including more than £100 million in voluntary coupled support for livestock producers. In contrast to the UK Government, we have committed to supporting active farming and food production through direct payments, to provide the certainty that the industry asked for, and we have brought forward payment dates to ensure that farmers and crofters are paid at the earliest possible opportunity, to assist with cash flow.
Funding for Scottish agriculture is no longer separately identified in the UK Government’s settlement. I have made representations to make it clear that applying a Barnett-based population settlement is inappropriate for land and sea-based support and that it fails to recognise the potential of Scotland’s land and seas to contribute significantly to the UK’s climate and restoration targets.
The minister will be aware that many small farmers and crofters and those in island areas spent a lot of money preparing applications for the previous scheme, from which they gained little or nothing, even though they should have been prioritised. Will he make the new round of the scheme easier to apply to, so that people do not have to risk their own finances and end up getting nothing in return?
Rhoda Grant said that those people should have been prioritised. I remind the member that applying to the scheme was not—and was never meant to be—a guarantee of funding for the priority groups, who still had to meet the scheme’s objectives. I see Rhoda Grant shaking her head at my point. The objectives of the scheme were about investing in what we were trying to achieve in relation to our climate and nature restoration targets, and we made it a priority to encourage the priority groups to apply for the fund.
As I said in my initial answer to Willie Rennie, we are looking at the scheme to work out why people did not understand the forms that we were asking them to fill in. By doing that, we will, I hope, get them to fill in the forms and put in applications that are eligible.
Future Farming Investment Scheme (Guidance on Grounds for Rejection)
I do not know whether there will be anything left to answer on this topic. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that a large number of applications have been rejected in the future farming investment scheme, what analysis and guidance it has issued explaining the grounds for rejection. (S6O-05586)
A detailed assessment document explaining eligibility, verification, scoring and ranking for the 2025 round was published on the rural payments and inspections division website on 19 December 2025. Applicants may request further clarification of the outcome of their FFIS application by contacting the FFIS team.
I am glad that something has been published, because, as the minister knows, more than 5,000 people applied in 2025 but there was a 70 per cent rejection rate. Although this is an excellent scheme, the minister will know that it will, yet again, be oversubscribed. Something must be going wrong. I ask the minister to consider testing out any draft guidance to see whether it does what it says on the tin.
I should say first, in response to Christine Grahame’s point, that the scheme was hugely oversubscribed because that very generous package offered 100 per cent grants. However, as I stated in my response to Willie Rennie, we are carefully reviewing the scheme and will engage with industry stakeholders to discuss how it could be further optimised.
If we had something wrong in how the scheme was laid out and how people were interacting with it, we will look at that. We will engage with stakeholders to ensure that the views from across the sector are taken into consideration. Details of the next round will be announced once the necessary stakeholder engagement has taken place.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow for a changeover of front-bench teams.
Health and Social Care
Renfrewshire Health and Social Care Partnership
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Renfrewshire health and social care partnership and what was discussed. (S6O-05587)
Scottish Government ministers and officials meet regularly with representatives of health and social care partnerships. A Scottish Government official met the chief officer of Renfrewshire health and social care partnership on 17 February this year, when local financial pressures were discussed. A follow-up meeting between officials, the chief officer and the chief financial officer is scheduled for 13 March this year.
A Renfrewshire health and social care partnership representative also attended the collaborative response and assurance group on Monday 24 February this year. The meeting focused on delayed discharge performance.
I bet that funding pressures were discussed because, despite the welcome £5.7 million of support that was announced by Renfrewshire Council last week, the health and social care partnership still faces a significant budget shortfall. That means that the closure of the disability resource centre in Paisley, cuts to the autism connections programme and the merger of day centres for adults with learning disabilities are still on the table. Information from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities shows that the Scottish Government’s underfunding of social care has resulted in an estimated £497 million funding gap for integration joint boards across Scotland this year.
The decision on those vital services in Renfrewshire, which some of the most vulnerable people I represent rely on, has been conveniently pushed back to after the election in June, leaving them anxious. Given that the Government has ignored that issue in the budget, what will the minister do now to address that gap? Given the Scottish National Party’s record until now, is it not the case that, if—I emphasise the “if”—the SNP is still in power after May, it is almost certain that those service cuts will go ahead?
I thank the member for raising those important issues. The first point to highlight is that we recognise that social care is under significant pressure in Scotland, just as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is why there is an uplift in funding for social care in the budget, why there is an uplift in funding overall for health and social care and why there is an uplift in funding for local government. That has been achieved through the parliamentary process in setting the budget. We will continue to engage closely with local partners, recognising the pressures that are faced, but, ultimately, as has been expressed as the will of the Parliament, those decisions are for local partners to take.
Social Care Workers
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on tackling the reported critical shortage of social care workers. (S6O-05588)
The Scottish Government is taking forward a range of actions to address the social care workforce shortage, including investing more than £1.1 billion annually to support the real living wage, funding national recruitment platforms such as caretocare.scot, funding free vacancy advertising on the myjobscotland website and working with the Department for Work and Pensions to promote career pathways. We have also funded the £500,000 displaced workers scheme, which supports employers to recruit international workers who are already in the UK and who find themselves without sponsored employment through no fault of their own. We will continue to press the UK Government for a visa system that better meets Scotland’s needs.
I hope that the minister agrees that we need to create a proper career structure for care workers across Scotland to make it attractive for people in Scotland to become carers. The story of care workers in Scotland so far is one of being undervalued and underpaid, with mixed terms and conditions, depending on the employer—some have very poor terms and conditions compared to others. Does the minister accept that, if we are to build a proper career in care, we need national pay bargaining and national terms and conditions, and that we need to treat all care workers in Scotland with respect and recognise their value?
I thank Mr Rowley for his question and his tone. As always, he approaches these matters in a thoughtful, considered and constructive way.
We recognise that need, which is why we are uplifting support for payment of the real living wage. The budget also contains provisions to enhance terms and conditions and waive the protecting vulnerable groups scheme membership fee.
On the broader point about sectoral bargaining, we continue to engage on that and make progress in Government and with partners—providers, third sector representatives and trade unions—and we will keep the Parliament up to date and informed.
There is a chronic shortage of care staff in many rural and island communities. For example, Montrose house on Arran has 15 staff—that is around 30 per cent of the required complement, which necessitates a reduction in capacity to ensure that safe care standards are maintained. Will the minister advise the Parliament what impact the UK Labour Government’s removal of social care visas for non‑UK nationals on 22 July 2025 has had, and will have, on the provision of care across Scotland?
I recognise that Mr Gibson holds a particular constituency interest in the impact of the UK Government’s decisions. As I touched on in my previous responses, we face a serious, considered and continuing set of fiscal and economic pressures with which households, businesses and public sector organisations in every part of the UK are wrestling.
We must also contend with those pressures being compounded by political choices made by the UK Labour Government, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions and the decisions that it has taken on health and social care visas. The UK Government’s visa policy is a completely needless and pointless attempt to manage its political challenge of engaging with Reform UK. It is having a devastating impact on social care, and it underscores why this Parliament should have full responsibility over such matters, so that we can take the right decisions for the people of Scotland.
Colleges report that they have had to turn away qualified applicants from social care courses due to a lack of Scottish Government funding. At Ayrshire College’s Kilmarnock campus alone, 71 applicants have been turned away. Given the shortfall in social care worker numbers, would it not be prudent to ensure that applicants for those courses are fully funded?
It is important that we have a coherent and joined-up approach. I hope that the member recognises that the budget that the Parliament has agreed to—without the Conservative Party’s support, I note—provides a significant funding uplift for not only health and social care but colleges. I hope that that demonstrates to Brian Whittle the Scottish Government’s commitment to addressing those issues.
The problem is that the crisis has been coming for a long time. For too long, the Government took it for granted that social care workers would work for a lower wage than those who work in the national health service. As a result, those workers are now leaving and we do not have the support that we need.
We will not be able to fix the NHS without fixing social care. We have already seen long waits at accident and emergency departments as a result of the lack of flow through hospitals. When will the Government step up with more measures to make a real difference, because we will not fix the NHS otherwise?
I recognise the constructive approach that the Liberal Democrats took to engagement with the Scottish Government during the budget process with regard to social care. As I touched on in my response to Mr Rowley, we are engaging with providers, those who work directly in social care and trade unions on an on-going basis. A key element of that will be the progress that we make towards achieving sectoral bargaining.
Mr Rennie highlighted the distinction between those who work in the NHS and those who work elsewhere, which reflects the existing structures. I recognise that most members of this Parliament opposed the creation of a national care service, so the arrangements that prevail and that are currently in place mean that such decisions are taken locally. However, the work on sectoral bargaining can help significantly to address the valid points that Mr Rennie has raised.
What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that social care package reductions will have on unpaid carers, in light of concerns from Carers UK that the current budget is insufficient to allow unpaid carers and support services to thrive?
I recognise the significant contribution that unpaid carers make. There are an estimated 800,000 unpaid carers in Scotland. If we sought to quantify their contribution in financial terms, it would come to approximately £13 billion.
I recognise that decisions that have been taken by integration joint boards are causing concern in local areas. However, I remind members in the chamber that the position that the Parliament ultimately reached when considering the proposed national care service was that decisions should be taken locally. As a consequence of the budget that the Government put before the Parliament, we are seeing an uplift in funding for social care. However, we will continue to engage with carers’ organisations, because we recognise the invaluable work that they do, and we will identify all opportunities that are available to enhance support for them.
MRKH Syndrome
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support women with MRKH syndrome to access fertility treatment. (S6O-05589)
Couples who experience infertility as a result of conditions such as MRKH can be referred for national health service in vitro fertilisation treatment, including NHS IVF with surrogacy, provided that they meet all the additional NHS access criteria. Eligible patients may be offered up to three cycles of IVF when there is a reasonable expectation of a live birth.
Women living with MRKH cannot carry a pregnancy, but they may have children via IVF with a surrogate, as the minister highlighted, or adoption.
Sadly, one of my constituents is unable to access that surrogate option, as she cannot have her embryos developed until a commitment is made from a surrogate. However, to date, surrogates have been unwilling to commit to a surrogacy unless they receive an assurance that embryos are ready to be implanted at the time of agreement. That has made it impossible for her and her partner to start their family.
I understand that, in some situations, women can have their embryos frozen without having a surrogate in place—for example, if the woman has a cancer diagnosis. Given that MRKH syndrome is such a rare condition that provides no chance of spontaneous conception, will the minister commit to considering access to specialised fertility treatment for women such as my constituent?
I take this opportunity to recognise the caring and thoughtful way in which Audrey Nicoll has represented her constituents during her time in the Parliament.
The Scottish Government’s guidance on the provision of fertility preservation in the NHS in Scotland, which was published on 27 February, provides information on patient groups to be considered for NHS fertility preservation treatment. The list is not exhaustive, and special consideration is likely to be necessary on a case-by-case basis to cover the range of possible conditions. Clinicians should use their local multidisciplinary group and/or a peer review process to facilitate rapid and equitable decision making. A surrogate is not required to be in place for NHS fertility preservation treatment, so I am happy to take away the points that Ms Nicoll has raised.
Changing Places Toilets Scotland Fund
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the changing places toilets Scotland fund. (S6O-05590)
In December, I confirmed awards from the changing places toilets fund totalling £4.7 million for 59 projects across Scotland. On 20 February, a further £2.3 million was approved for 25 projects, which brought the total figure for awards to more than £7 million for 84 projects.
The provision of the new facilities in communities across Scotland will support people with complex disabilities and health conditions to participate fully in society and access community resources.
The 2026-27 budget, which the Parliament approved, includes an additional £10 million for changing places toilets over the next three financial years. That brings the total investment that has been committed to £20 million.
As the minister will be aware, this issue is quite important to me personally. Along with the minister, I recently attended an event at the Tannahill centre in Ferguslie Park, in Paisley, which received funding for a changing places toilet. Does the minister agree that such facilities improve accessibility for disabled people and should be seen as standard throughout Scotland?
I recognise Mr Adam’s long-standing interest in this area. He is absolutely correct that venues such as the Tannahill centre provide essential services and amenities that are well used by local communities. The installation of the changing places toilet will make a huge difference to the everyday lives of people in the community who have complex disabilities and health conditions, as well as their families and carers. These essential facilities ensure that disabled people can attend venues such as the Tannahill centre and use the services and amenities that are on offer, just like the rest of us. Changing places toilets are crucial to ensuring that communities are inclusive by providing individuals with greater freedom, dignity and independence.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Royal Mail (Patient Correspondence)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde regarding the implementation of the Royal Mail national health service-specific barcode system to ensure that appointment letters, test results and urgent patient correspondence are delivered on time, particularly during service disruptions. (S6O-05591)
It is unacceptable for anyone’s mail to be delayed unnecessarily, and such delays are especially concerning for patients who are awaiting hospital appointments. The First Minister visited Royal Mail at Christmas time. During that visit, he took the opportunity to discuss options for optimising delivery times for NHS mail. I have since asked my officials to work with health boards and Royal Mail to explore options for a roll-out of NHS barcodes, which are already in use in some mail rooms, to help to minimise delays to NHS correspondence.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I raised the issue with the First Minister just prior to Christmas. Unfortunately, some of my constituents’ mail deliveries are still sporadic, meaning that they often receive large bundles rather than regular deliveries. Some say that they are receiving NHS appointment letters after the fact.
Notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary has just said, can he advise what progress has been made to enable health boards, health and social care partnerships and general practitioner practices, especially those that cover Inverclyde, to utilise the Royal Mail’s NHS barcode system, so that patients across Inverclyde and Scotland can be assured that important health-related mail is prioritised?
I am sorry to hear of Mr McMillan’s constituents’ experience. We all want patients to receive appointment offers that allow them sufficient time to plan for their appointment or treatment. Any delay to patients receiving letters that results in missed appointments is not acceptable.
As part of the updated waiting times guidance, patients now receive a period of at least 10 calendar days for an offer of appointment, which has increased from seven calendar days. Patients may also consent to different methods of communication for that offer of appointment, such as receiving a phone call. We will continue to work with NHS boards and Royal Mail to explore all options to ensure that appointment letters can be prioritised where possible.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.
How can Royal Mail possibly find patients at the Queen Elizabeth hospital when rooms have been sealed off due to mould and dirty water ingress? Surely, it is time for the board to admit by mail to patients that things may not be safe at the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
That supplementary goes a bit wide of the question, which was about forms of communication and not the destinations of the letters or where patients are expected to be.
I call a supplementary from Paul Sweeney.
We support the introduction of NHS-specific barcodes, but it is quite frustrating that we are once again talking about an analogue stop-gap when Scotland is falling ever more behind in the latest digital patient technology. In England, the NHS app has been running for seven years now, with patients able to view and request prescriptions, book GP appointments, view health records and even change GPs from their phone. However, because the Scottish Government is unwilling to tap into the readily available system, Scots will not get to enjoy an NHS app until 2030. That is unacceptable. Will the cabinet secretary agree that it is time to end parochial posturing and work with the United Kingdom Government to roll out the NHS app in Scotland in an integrated way, as a matter of urgency?
The picture that has been painted of the NHS app in England is not, as far as I have been told, the case universally. Furthermore, here in Scotland we are attempting to create an integrated health and social care app. That app is currently being piloted in Lanarkshire. Its further roll-out across Scotland is scheduled to begin in April. We are seeking to give people digital access to their records and appointments and to be able to utilise the obvious advantages that—I agree with Mr Sweeney on this—will come from a roll-out of the application. However, there is no parochialism involved here. It is different technology with different applications, and here in Scotland we have a different aspiration for what the NHS health and social care app—the MyCare app—is to achieve, which is the integration of health and social care. That is not available in England.
NHS Agenda for Change Staff (Working Week)
I remind the chamber of my voluntary entry of trade union interests.
Yes, the final 60-minute reduction in the working week for NHS agenda for change staff will be implemented on 1 April 2026.
When half an hour was supposed to be reduced from the working week on 1 April 2024, it was only partially implemented. When half an hour was supposed to be reduced from the working week on 1 April 2025, it was pulled. Now, on 1 April 2026, a full hour is supposed to be reduced from the working week for NHS agenda for change staff. However, it has been reliably reported to me that although health boards have submitted plans to the Government, they have not been given assurances that the funding will be recurring. Neither, with four weeks to go, have they all reached agreement locally or nationally on how those plans will be implemented.
Why should our committed NHS workers believe that this time will be any different? Can the Government give our workers a cast-iron guarantee today—in Parliament and on the record—that they will all move to a 36-hour contractual working week in four weeks’ time, and that they will all do so with no loss of earnings?
With your forbearance, Presiding Officer, I would like to take what may be the last opportunity for me to pay tribute to the contribution that Richard Leonard has made to the Parliament. He is a local competitor, but never an adversary, and I am very grateful for the advocacy and service that he has given on behalf of the trade union movement in particular, and also on behalf of our shared constituents. I am very grateful to him for that, and I wish him well for the future.
On the points that Richard Leonard has made, I have to correct him on the matter of any perception of delay. That was not the case: there was no confirmation as to the roll-out of the working week as described. I recognise that there was some upset when I took the decision to ensure that the final hour was done at once, rather than in two stages, but I have set out clearly and plainly why I took that decision, and I have subjected myself to the scrutiny of trade union colleagues. I am confident, off the back of the assurances that I have received, with my chairs and chief executives, that this is non-negotiable, and that we will achieve that roll-out on 1 April.
I welcome the 2026-27 Scottish budget, which provides record funding to our NHS and its dedicated staff. Can the cabinet secretary explain how measures in the budget will support the implementation of agenda for change workforce reforms, including a reduced working week?
Yes—and this also addresses some of what Richard Leonard was looking for. We have invested a total of £300 million, which is recurring, to boards to help implement agenda for change workforce reforms. That includes the reduction of the working week to 36 hours for all agenda for change staff. I have written to NHS boards this week to confirm that they remain on track to implement the final hour reduction on 1 April and that they will continue to work closely with trade unions to ensure that that is facilitated.
Social Care Packages
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in response to reports that local authorities are reducing or withdrawing social care packages at short notice, including how it will ensure there is clear communication, adequate notice and safeguarding in place for any vulnerable people affected. (S6O-05593)
The Scottish Government expects integration joint boards to safeguard vulnerable people affected by any change to their care package. It is their duty to strategically plan the delivery of integrated health and social care provision and to adhere to national health and social care standards. An individual’s care package should be reviewed or ended because an individual’s needs have changed, not for financial planning or other operational reasons. The Scottish Government will continue to work with local government and providers to deliver sustained improvement.
A constituent of mine was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in January 2025. They received no information apart from that they had not qualified for self-directed support. Ten months later, without any warning or communication, a home carer arrived at the door, stating that they had been assigned to provide care. That caused extreme distress to my constituent with Alzheimer’s, and also to their family and support.
Can the Scottish Government ensure that local authorities do not reduce, withdraw or alter care packages without clear communication and adequate notice, to ensure that vulnerable people are protected?
I thank Clare Adamson for bringing the circumstances of her constituent to the attention of Parliament. I am deeply sorry to hear about the circumstances that she has described, and I offer my sympathies and thoughts to her constituent for the distress that that has caused.
Local authorities, NHS boards and integrated health and social care partnerships are responsible for ensuring clear arrangements for delivering, commissioning, managing and monitoring care packages. The health and social care standards outline what people should expect from services, and it is clear that, in this case, those standards have not been met.
We are reviewing those standards, and I can tell the member that I will be asking my officials to look into the matter further immediately, to provide the member with a written update and to identify any appropriate support for her constituent.
Question 8 has been withdrawn. That therefore concludes portfolio questions on health and social care.
Next
Education