Official Report 403KB pdf
Asylum Seekers (Perth)
To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to ensure the safety of people seeking asylum who are housed in hotels across Perth. (S6O-05467)
Everyone should be able to feel safe and secure in the place where they live.
The United Kingdom Government is responsible for providing all asylum accommodation, including hotels. That includes security and support for people who are seeking asylum. I am deeply concerned that the protests outside asylum accommodation are creating significant fear and alarm. The right to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression should never be used to justify any form of hateful, violent or otherwise criminal behaviour. We fully support Police Scotland taking appropriate action in response to criminal offences being committed at, or around, such protests.
I warmly thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is important that we recognise that there has been an increase in racist hate crimes in the past year and that far-right groups are using the protests to intimidate marginalised people. Although buffer zones around accommodation could provide increased protection from fear and intimidation, that approach alone would not tackle the harmful rhetoric, scapegoating or false narratives being placed on people who are trapped in the asylum system.
Communities have gathered and organised to put on counter-protests and rallies in Perth that show clear solidarity and a refusal to allow people to be demonised and attacked. Beyond buffer zones, what action will the Scottish Government take to tackle the divisive messaging, build on that community solidarity and fight the far right?
I thank Mark Ruskell for asking that important question, which once again gives the Parliament—with, I hope, full support around the chamber—the opportunity to say that, yes, people have a right to peaceful protest and to freedom of expression, but nothing should happen to anyone living in any of our communities that spreads fear and alarm. Unfortunately, we are seeing more of that.
The Government can take, and is taking, action on the matter, despite the fact that asylum is a reserved matter. The Minister for Equalities, Kaukab Stewart, has done a great deal of work with communities and has increased the funding for community cohesion work. That funds grass-roots organisations to do exactly the type of work that Mark Ruskell mentioned, which is exceptionally important. The Government also recently ran the “We are Scotland” campaign to say how important it is that we stick together on the matter and not be divided.
The abuse and intimidation that we continue to witness in Perth and across the UK is deeply concerning and should have no place in our society. We know that ending the no recourse to public funds policy is essential for the long-term integration and wellbeing of asylum seekers. In the light of the increasing hostility within our communities, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to challenge the UK Government on that policy?
No one should be forced into destitution. That includes people who are subject to no recourse to public funds, which is a matter that the UK Government must resolve.
The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are working on an ending destitution together strategy that deals with our work with people who are subject to no recourse to public funds. I was deeply disappointed by the statement in November on asylum reform, which will push more people into destitution and mean that more people have no recourse to public funds. The Scottish Government remains resolute that the UK Government should change its mind on that issue.
Budget 2026-27 (Lochgelly)
To ask the Scottish Government what the implications of its draft budget 2026-27 are for the provision of a new medical centre for Lochgelly. (S6O-05468)
As is set out in the infrastructure delivery pipeline, we are developing a revenue funding model to enable additional infrastructure investment across primary and community care with a network of local care and wellbeing centres, starting with projects in Port Glasgow, East Livingston and East Calder, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly and the range of sites further listed in the document. We are also working with all boards to develop an NHS whole-system infrastructure plan to inform future investment priorities across the estate and ensure that the available funding is directed to best effect.
Of course, I welcome any proposed regeneration in my constituency. With regard specifically to Lochgelly, it is good news for my constituents that a new Lochgelly medical centre is back on the Scottish Government’s capital projects waiting list, but they will be dismayed that construction is now not forecast to start until at least 2031, which will be some 20 years after the first promise, notwithstanding the fact that there is a business case and that planning permission is in place. Does the cabinet secretary understand the disappointment that is felt about that? What will he do to accelerate the project, so that Lochgelly gets its long-awaited new medical centre?
I very much recognise the points that Annabelle Ewing raises. Having visited the existing centre and met her constituents, I feel their disappointment and I understand it. That is why, in the absence of sufficient conventional capital being available in my portfolio and across Government to bring forward those infrastructure investment projects, we have sought to create the revenue-based model to allow for the delivery of the Lochgelly and Cowdenbeath project and the other projects in the system.
The current timeline is an estimate of when the model will be ready, alongside the associated business case and design work, and we are looking to accelerate that timeline, as I stressed to Ms Ewing in the meeting that I had with her recently. The design of a facility tends to be the aspect that takes the longest time to complete, but the business case process will happen concurrently with the development of the funding model, so that the project can be progressed imminently.
After two decades of broken promises, I am sure that the health secretary will understand why the people of Lochgelly will be hesitant to welcome this project. However, I hope that we are going in the right direction and that it will happen. The other health centre in Fife that is crumbling is the one in Kincardine, but there is no mention of that in any of the documents. Can he tell me what is happening there?
Please answer on the substantive question, cabinet secretary.
In addition to the progress that is being made in Lochgelly, there is progress for Kincardine. Further down the document from where we list Port Glasgow, East Calder and East Livingston, and Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly, Kincardine is also there in the list of projects in the first tranche of the work to be delivered through the revenue-based model. I am happy to assure Alex Rowley—and, as I am sitting next to the constituency representative for Kincardine, Ms Somerville, I assure her, too—that Kincardine is on the list and that that project will also be delivered as part of the work.
Thrombectomy Services (Scottish Borders)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what work it is doing to improve access to thrombectomy services across the Scottish Borders. (S6O-05469)
Our aim is to deliver a service that provides thrombectomies whenever they are required. NHS Scotland’s national services directorate has established a task and finish group to produce options to expand access to thrombectomy across Scotland, including in NHS Borders, and that work is making positive progress. Since 2023-24, we have provided more than £185,000-worth of funding for thrombectomy in NHS Borders, including for the provision of hyperacute stroke nurses. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, a further £17 million has been allocated to the development of the thrombectomy service in the 2026-27 budget, and that will include continued investment in NHS Borders.
Essentially, the minister is telling my Borders constituents that, if they have a stroke and need a thrombectomy, they must hope that it happens during the working week. Currently, due to a lack of funding and services, patients in the south-east of Scotland can access that treatment only at the Edinburgh royal infirmary and only from Monday to Friday between 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock. The uplift in the stroke funding is only £1 million, so there is still a deficit, and stroke happens not only on weekdays but on weekends.
Previously, Jenni Minto acknowledged that thrombectomy not only transforms patient outcomes but can save the national health service money, due to reduced hospital stays and lower social care costs. I say to the minister that it is time that she committed to meeting me and the Stroke Association to set out a clear and urgent timetable for expanding thrombectomy services for people in the Borders, because they feel that it is currently an inequitable service.
I would be very happy to meet Ms Hamilton and the Stroke Association. I have regular meetings with the Stroke Association and with Chest, Heart & Stroke Scotland. I also regularly meet the leaders for stroke in all the national health service boards, to ensure that they are as focused as I am and the Scottish Government is on ensuring that, as I said in my initial response, thrombectomy services can be as equitable as possible through the hub-and-spoke mechanism that NHS National Services Scotland is currently working on.
Salmon Farming (Mortality Data)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether voluntary reporting of mortality data in the salmon farming industry provides sufficient transparency and animal welfare protection. (S6O-05470)
More data is collected and published on salmon farming in Scotland than on any other farming sector. There are statutory requirements to report increased mortality, and a voluntary reporting mechanism supports fish health surveillance that is undertaken by the fish health inspectorate. Data is proactively published and is sufficient for regulatory purposes. Although numbers do not protect welfare, statutory protection, industry standards and regulatory powers do, and those are in place.
Official guidance will be introduced to further progress welfare standards. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is responsible for considering potential breaches in welfare legislation, and suspected cases of poor welfare are also referred to the agency.
Given that in 2025 the fish health inspectorate found that more than 400,000 fish deaths had gone unreported across 27 incidents, that gill disease mortality had increased sharply and that companies reported fish culls to shareholders but not to the Government, will the Government commit to mandatory mortality reporting for all deaths before permitting further expansion of salmon farming?
In relation to Ariane Burgess’s point about culling, I would just say that, as with other types of farming, producers sometimes need to humanely cull stock for operational or commercial purposes or to try to achieve better welfare outcomes for the individual fish, instead of considering only progression to the next phase of production.
Right now, the Scottish Government does not collect complete data on the number of fish that are culled at salmon farms, but in exceptional circumstances, culling is required to mitigate the risk of listed diseases that could have significant local or national impact. Culling is primarily a result of operational decisions, and reporting on it is not required for the fish health inspectorate’s surveillance programme for aquatic animal disease, unless the cull relates to increased or unexplained mortality.
We require data to be collected for a number of different purposes. We believe that the data that is published, whether it be voluntarily or due to what we require through regulation, is suitable for those purposes.
I congratulate the industry on complying with the recommendation of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report from 2018 on providing data. The problem is that, for nine years, the industry provided figures for total weight of fish loss, and now they go on numbers of fish lost. Will the cabinet secretary speak to the industry to see whether it can continue to report in the way that it did for nine years and not break what is a sequence of very useful data?
I am happy to look at that issue further and follow it up with Edward Mountain. The numbers are important, but I will have to consider the issue further.
Non-fatal Strangulation
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in the current parliamentary session on preventing gender-based violence in relation to non-fatal strangulation. (S6O-05471)
Non-fatal strangulation is heinous behaviour that is criminal under Scots law and can be dealt with using a range of offences. We resource Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which independently enforce the criminal offences such as assault and domestic abuse that can be used to hold perpetrators to account. We have also ensured that new laws criminalising strangulation in pornography, introduced through the United Kingdom Crime and Policing Bill, will extend to Scotland.
We keep laws under review and a public consultation will be published shortly, seeking views on a range of gender-based violence issues, including non-fatal strangulation. That is in line with our programme for government commitment. It will also include specific consideration on how better to record data in the criminal justice system on cases involving non-fatal strangulation.
I struggled to hear most of that response, but I will do my best.
A Centre for Women’s Justice article, posted on its website, said:
“Many survivors describe how they truly believed they were going to die whilst they were being strangled. Some report such offending as taking place in full view of their children. Not being able to breathe is terrifying”.
The bringing in of a stand-alone offence in England and Wales has been welcomed by front-line organisations such as Women’s Aid and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Why are the Scottish victims still being left behind? What message does the minister think that it sends that victims here get less protection?
I hope that the member is able to look back at my initial response, in which I set out the work that we are currently doing.
We understand that we need to improve our understanding of the prevalence of non-fatal strangulation, and we know that more needs to be done. Alongside our robust Scottish laws, we are clear that more needs to be done to understand the prevalence of non-fatal strangulation. Through the Scottish crime and justice survey, we have taken steps to find out about its prevalence in Scotland, and the initial results will be available for 2026-27. The forthcoming Scottish Government consultation will also seek views on how the matter can best be addressed and how we can legislate in future.
RAAC in Housing Leadership Group
To ask the Scottish Government how it is ensuring that the local authorities involved with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete housing leadership group are engaging appropriately and are including residents and RAAC campaigners in their activities. (S6O-05472)
It is my expectation that local authorities will engage with tenants and residents in their area as we work on solutions. As part of last week’s RAAC in housing leadership group, I sought an update from local authorities and registered social landlords on the support that they are providing to residents. Their feedback included written communications, including letters, engagement with the Association of British Insurers on behalf of residents, updated communication strategies, regular monitoring and inspections of RAAC, pilot projects, dedicated RAAC staff and regular reporting to their committee and elected members.
Last August, the cabinet secretary attended a public meeting in Dundee, at which an undertaking was given that people who were affected by RAAC and campaigning for a fair resolution would be properly involved in processes and decisions.
However, that has not happened. Dundee City Council has indicated that it will roll out its roof-reinforcing pilot to the rest of the city, but that pilot has started without any consultation. There are serious concerns that just covering up the RAAC will not deal with the issue and could jeopardise mortgages and insurance. Can the cabinet secretary give an update on how communications and engagement are progressing in Dundee to ensure that there is genuine community involvement?
I urge Dundee City Council to continue to ensure that it provides transparent and clear advice and appropriate support for residents who are affected by RAAC.
Maggie Chapman was quite right to mention the public meeting that I attended in Dundee on the topic. One of the commitments that I gave on the Government’s part was that I would try to use the new Institution of Structural Engineers guidance specifically on housing in RAAC in Scotland to negotiate a better outcome for those who are looking to buy or sell properties that have been remediated. That was the subject of our leadership meeting last week, and I believe that progress is being made.
Housing to 2040 (Adaptations)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on action 20 of the housing to 2040 strategy to “streamline and accelerate the adaptations system”. (S6O-05473)
During stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I restated our commitment to reviewing the housing adaptations system. That review will consider how the process can be streamlined to enable people who need adaptations to access them quickly and easily. My officials have been working to develop the workstreams to take that forward.
I can inform the chamber that an advisory group of key stakeholders has been established, the first meeting of which will take place on 11 February. Engagements will continue over the coming months, and a report and recommendations are expected to be produced in the autumn.
In Midlothian North and Musselburgh, many of my constituents in park homes are living in difficult circumstances as they await progress on this issue. With that in mind, what additional funding has been allocated to support the adaptations system?
I appreciate the point that Colin Beattie makes, and I again point him to the work that we are doing to ensure that a review is undertaken. It is worth putting on the record, in respect of his question on costs, that, in this year’s budget, we more than doubled the registered social landlords’ adaptation budget to £20.9 million, and our draft budget for the coming financial year maintains that.
We have time for question 8, if we are brief.
National Health Service (Whistleblowing)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the culture of whistleblowing in the NHS. (S6O-05474)
A positive whistleblowing culture is essential to patient safety, staff confidence and the effective running of NHS Scotland. All health service staff should feel confident to raise concerns, and I have been direct with NHS boards about the need to protect and support whistleblowers.
Concerns raised by whistleblowers must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. Whistleblowing culture is kept under review through staff surveys, engagement with boards, the NHS Scotland whistleblowing policy and the work of the independent national whistleblowing officer, whom I met this week. Those arrangements promote safe reporting, accountability, transparency and learning.
With the exclusive in this morning’s Scotsman on trying to silence whistleblowers by offering them trips to Disneyland, with the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland saying in Parliament this week that people are frightened to speak up because of the culture of cover-up that we have in the NHS, with careers being destroyed and with the bullying and endless cover-ups, Neil Gray must accept that what we have is not working. Will he accept that we need a complete reset of whistleblowing in the NHS and in Scotland’s public services, and will he take a lead in making the case for a truly independent office of the whistleblower outside the structure of the NHS?
I met the independent national whistleblowing officer—the ombudsman—this week to discuss priorities for strengthening the speak-up culture across NHS boards. He was clear with me that the structures that we have in place are robust; the issue that he is concerned about is ensuring that there is follow-up when concerns are raised and that action is taken when complaints are upheld, and I have agreed to work with him on how we ensure that greater scaffolding and ballast are provided in that respect. That is what I will take forward with the national whistleblowing officer.
That concludes general question time.