Official Report 1201KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to determine whether there could be any unintended consequences. (S6O-05090)
We have undertaken the full suite of assessments that were required for introduction of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. The rationale for the bill is set out in the accompanying policy memorandum. Ahead of its introduction, the Scottish Government carried out three public consultations on the proposals in the bill, and the responses to those consultations informed its development. In addition, officials continue to engage closely with internal and external stakeholders, including non-government organisations, land managers and farmers, to identify and address any potential unintended consequences.
The bill could seriously impact the deer management sector, allowing NatureScot’s overreach and conflicting powers to be enhanced while eroding the trust of those who work in the sector. Meanwhile, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and NFU Scotland have expressed significant concerns about unintended impacts of the bill’s mandatory training provisions, which come without any grandfather rights on lowland deer management. That could create barriers to entry and reduce the pool of active deer stalkers, despite a lack of evidence indicating that it is required.
At a time when the Government is legislating for more deer to be culled across Scotland, why is it simultaneously ignoring such concerns?
We are not ignoring concerns at all. I stated in my first answer that we are actively engaging with deer managers right across the country—lowland and upland.
On the ability to shoot deer effectively, I do not think that it is too much to ask to ensure that deer stalkers and those who control deer have the requisite training to ensure that that is done safely and appropriately.
Environmental groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have highlighted the high financial costs for removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain. As things stand, NatureScot and other environmental restoration groups must use already stretched budgets to mitigate the environmental damage that is caused by the negligence of private companies. There is concern that, if the bill does not address that issue, it might unintentionally further embolden big polluters. Does the Scottish Government support the principle that the polluters must pay for the environmental damage that their industry causes?
I absolutely understand that there are some concerns about the seeding of conifers, but all those things will be stretched out and discussed as the bill progresses.
Path Networks
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting path networks established under land reform legislation for outdoor recreation. (S6O-05091)
Our right of responsible non-motorised access to land is world leading in extent, scope and clarity. Access authorities, which are our local and national park authorities, have a duty under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to uphold access rights and to draw up a plan for a system of paths—a core path network—that is sufficient to give local users and visitors reasonable access throughout their areas. As that is a local authority responsibility, the Scottish Government supports the duty primarily through the provision of the annual block grant to local authorities.
The cabinet secretary will recognise that the path network plays an important part in our recreational programme for walkers across Scotland. However, there is growing concern about the maintenance of the path network. We spend almost £188 million a year on active travel infrastructure, but less than 1 per cent of that is allocated to our national path network. Will she engage with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to explore how a greater allocation of the active travel budget could be allocated to our national path network?
I am more than happy to agree to engage with colleagues on that point. Some of the funding issues for paths have been related to the fact that we have a number of different funds for a number of different areas. It makes sense for us to utilise that funding in the best possible way and where it will have the best impact.
Our rights of access are world leading and we should be proud of that, but maintenance of our core path networks is critical. I am more than happy to follow the point up with colleagues and write to Michael Matheson with a response.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response to Michael Matheson and I welcome the increased active travel investment, which was a key achievement of the Scottish Greens during our time in government. However, does the cabinet secretary recognise that that funding is not reaching recreational paths in the countryside, which are under increasing pressure? Will she therefore ensure that the new rural support plan will provide funding for outdoor access, as is now the case in Wales and used to be the case in Scotland until 2022?
I thank Ariane Burgess for raising that point, which reiterates how important the issue is. Funding for access was devolved to local government in the concordat that was reached in 2008, so it remains the responsibility of local authorities. Notwithstanding that, however, given some of the other funding streams that we have talked about, I want to ensure that that funding gets to where it needs to go and that we help to maintain those networks. I am more than happy to follow up with Ariane Burgess on how we go about that.
Animal-related Activities (Licensing Regulations)
To ask the Scottish Government, further to its consultation on proposals to introduce new licensing regulations covering a range of animal-related activities, what discussions it has had with Police Scotland and Trading Standards Scotland. (S6O-05092)
Officials from the Scottish Government’s animal welfare team meet trading standards officers as part of their regular engagement with local authorities, which are responsible for the enforcement of animal licensing legislation. There have been no discussions about licensing with Police Scotland since the consultation in 2023.
The minister will be aware that I hosted a parliamentary round-table meeting last week to discuss the regulation of pet services, which was attended by Trading Standards Scotland, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Police Scotland and members of the Scottish Parliament. The discussion recognised the challenges with enforcement of any potential new regulatory rules and the fact that, when complaints or concerns are raised about pet groomers, pet boarders or dog walkers, the lack of regulation covering those businesses prohibits the police, trading standards officials or Scottish SCPA officers from being able to act.
Will the minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on the matter, given that the consultation analysis demonstrated overwhelming support from the public for regulation of pet services? Would he encourage the next Government, after the election, to introduce legislation to improve safeguards for pets?
Although the consultation demonstrated support for licensing, concerns were also expressed about the proportionality and cost of statutory licensing and about the capacity of local authorities to absorb and meaningfully enforce additional licensing requirements when budgets are already stretched. We are therefore assessing whether less onerous and more proportionate approaches, such as registration schemes linked to codes of conduct, could deliver similar outcomes to licensing. In the meantime, our immediate focus is to deliver on the proposal to regulate canine fertility businesses, due to the significant animal welfare concerns that are associated with that sector.
Land Use (Urban Settings)
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to deal with and improve land use issues, in particular dereliction and abandonment, in the urban setting. (S6O-05093)
The Scottish Government has put in place an enabling policy framework, including national planning framework 4, which actively encourages the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. We back that up with targeted funding to tackle the challenges of long-term vacant and derelict land. In 2025-26, the vacant and derelict land fund allocated £7.6 million to the five local authorities with the greatest amount of long-term vacant and derelict land. So far, the vacant and derelict land investment programme has invested in 33 projects, bringing just over 112 hectares of land back into use.
I have tried over many years to coax and cajole land and building owners to do something about the abandoned assets that they own in our towns, and have asked them to either clean and tidy them up, repurpose them or even sell them. Mostly, they ignore those pleas, since the councils usually act only if a property becomes a danger to the public. Abandoned land and derelict buildings can be the norm in many towns in Scotland.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it may be time for a different approach to those issues, with a move away from legislation and the serving of notices towards the promotion of a more co-operative approach? That would bring owners, retailers, the community and local councils together to bring about positive change in order to steadily improve the environment in the urban landscape in particular, in which we all share an interest.
I welcome the points that Willie Coffey makes, because I absolutely appreciate just how frustrating the situation is, and what a blight it can be, for communities. I am happy to hear and open to considering any new approaches that he might be willing to suggest. Those matters straddle a few different portfolios, so I will be keen to have those discussions with colleagues and raise the issues with them.
It is also important, however, to point out some of the other pieces of work that are under way that I think could help with some of the issues that Willie Coffey has outlined. We have had the consultation on community right to buy, which closed at the start of October, and there could well be relevant impacts from that, given the community right to buy that exists for abandoned, detrimental or neglected land. A consultation is also under way on compulsory sales orders, which, again, could help with some of those issues.
The Scottish Government’s Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which we are currently considering at stage 3, excludes urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on large land holdings. There is no mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management or urban land sales.
My colleague Paul Sweeney MSP has highlighted that, in Glasgow, 53 per cent of the population live within 500m of derelict land. The Scottish Government has long stated that work is under way, including the current review of the community right to buy. However, can the cabinet secretary tell us what steps the Government will take to deal with the matter and when we can expect that work to happen?
Rhoda Grant has raised some important points, as Paul Sweeney did when he spoke on some of the amendments that we discussed in our stage 3 consideration of the bill. The approach that we are taking through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is focused on rural land, is based on the recommendations in the Scottish Land Commission’s report as to where the issues are more pressing. However, that does not mean that we forget about urban areas and the pressures that exist there.
I have outlined some of the work—Rhoda Grant touched on it, too—such as the consultation on and review of community right to buy. I also touched on the consultation in relation to compulsory sales orders and compulsory purchase orders. The consultation has just closed, and it is important that we analyse the results to see what amendments could be needed to the various community rights to buy to ensure that those powers are easy for communities to use to tackle some of the issues that are right on their doorsteps.
I look forward to engaging further with Rhoda Grant as that work develops but, as I said, the consultation has only recently closed, so we need to examine the outcome of that first.
Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of the UK-wide fishing and coastal growth fund on opportunities for innovation that maximise the value created by Scotland’s seafood industry. (S6O-05094)
The allocation of just 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland is an insult to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities. It is unacceptable and must be reconsidered. Scotland accounts for more than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom’s fishing capacity and seafood exports, and Scottish vessels land more than 75 per cent of UK quota species. We made it clear to the UK Government that Scotland’s allocation should be at least 46 per cent, reflecting our share of the UK’s European Union fisheries funding. The unfair allocation severely restricts our ability to support critical innovation as our industry faces mounting pressures, and I strongly urge the UK Government to reconsider.
The insulting offer of just £28 million of the £360 million is a hammer blow for our fishing sector.
Seafood Scotland is driving the development of a Scottish ocean cluster, with Scotland joining the vanguard of countries that are researching how to extract more value from fish byproducts. In the face of the legacy of Brexit and a woeful UK Government funding offer, does the cabinet secretary agree that initiatives such as the cluster could serve as a catalyst for innovation, developing important new market opportunities and ensuring that the economic benefits that are generated flow directly back into the seafood sector?
I could not agree more with the points that Audrey Nicoll makes. I recognise the incredible work that Seafood Scotland does, as it is always looking to do more and is constantly innovating. However, we might think about how much more it could do were we to get the full opportunities that should be coming to us through the fishing and coastal growth fund, rather than being left with the share that we have.
I look forward to meeting Audrey Nicoll and Seafood Scotland to hear more about the ocean cluster project, because it is exciting. I am looking forward to those discussions, but I reiterate that the poor allocation to Scotland from the UK fishing and coastal growth fund really restricts the Scottish Government’s ability to support the seafood industry and to take more of those innovative steps.
Fishing Industry
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the Scottish fishing industry. (S6O-05095)
The Scottish Government is committed to building a thriving, sustainable fishing industry, recognising its importance to Scotland’s economy. The marine fund Scotland provided £14 million this year to marine interests, including fishing. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to allocate Scotland only 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund is unacceptable, and we will work to have the decision revisited. We negotiate with our fishing neighbours to manage shared stocks and promote the best interests of our industry. Our ambitious programme to modernise regulation, introduce our future catching policy, and improve inshore fisheries management underpins the sustainability of the industry.
I note that the cabinet secretary does a lot of work, particularly in my constituency, and is praised for her collaborative work with the Scottish fishing sector.
Communities across the coast rely on a fairly funded Scottish fishing industry, but, given the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland less than 8 per cent of the post-European Union fishing fund, despite our sector being the largest in the UK, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is only with the full powers of independence that Scotland’s fishing industry can be properly prioritised?
I could not agree more with Karen Adam. When we compare Scotland with other European countries, there is a stark contrast. For example, Denmark has a smaller marine area and a smaller marine sector and it receives £25 million annually, compared with the updated but woeful allocation that we are receiving from the UK Government. That is why I will always argue that the fishing industry’s best interests and Scotland’s interests more widely will be best represented when we are an independent country.
I certainly do not agree that independence would help the Scottish fishing sector in the slightest, but I agree that the coastal grant fund simply was not enough. More importantly, there is far more to talk about in our wonderful Scottish fishing industry than I can ask about. Traditionally, every December, there has been a debate on fishing. I have been calling for that debate for a while. Will the cabinet secretary give me the assurance that, this December, we will finally have a big debate about the fishing industry on Government time?
Earlier this year, I believe that I committed to Tim Eagle that we would have a debate. I hope that he got the response to his parliamentary question, which also set out that we would be holding that debate. Of course, confirmation of that is subject to a Parliamentary Bureau decision, but I have committed to bringing forward the debate, and it will happen.
The Fife fishing industry is deeply concerned that livelihoods will be disrupted by the offshore wind farms that are being built in the Forth without any compensation. Inch Cape, unlike the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm, is refusing to provide compensation for the mobile gear—the prawn boats—even though the cables are running through those fishing grounds, whereas the static gear is being compensated for. Will the cabinet secretary have a discussion with her colleagues to put together—at last—a compensation scheme for all the fishing industry, rather than just the statics?
Willie Rennie raises an important point that is, of course, impacting heavily on the industries in his constituency. I am more than happy to follow up with him and to have conversations with my colleagues to see what can be done in that regard. I understand that issues of compensation are currently private matters, but I appreciate the difficulties that he raises.
Agricultural Land (Change of Use)
To ask the Scottish Government how it monitors the change of use of agricultural land classified as grade 3 or above, including for infrastructure projects. (S6O-05096)
Scotland’s fourth land use strategy is due to be published by March 2026. Throughout its development, we will work with stakeholders regarding the multiple demands that are placed on our land and the fine balances that must be found as we move forward. The national planning framework 4 soils policy has safeguards in place for our best farm land and supports only in limited circumstances new development proposals on prime agricultural land or locally important agricultural land that is of lesser quality. The Scottish Government’s food security unit also seeks to annually review available information about the use of land with a capability for agricultural grades 1 to 3.2 and to improve the data.
In recent years, a number of infrastructure projects, from energy transmission and battery storage to housing, have been proposed or developed on agricultural land. Although individual projects may have a limited impact and some, such as solar farms, may be reversible in the long term, does the minister share my concern that, if the Scotland-wide cumulative effect of such projects is not monitored, localised planning decisions could undermine our long-term food security?
Maurice Golden makes a valid point, but the national planning framework 4 seeks to strike a balance between ensuring that land is protected and achieving other objectives relating to land use. The potential impacts on communities and nature, including prime agricultural land, are important considerations in the decision-making process, and all applications are subject to site-specific assessments.
I hope that the chamber has some confidence that we have the provisions in place to help protect the land.
New Farmers and Crofters (South Lanarkshire)
I apologise for being a wee bit late at the start.
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire. (S6O-05097)
We are committed to supporting new farmers in South Lanarkshire. The Farm Advisory Service provides peer-to-peer groups, mentoring and advice across a range of topics that are relevant to new entrants. They were one of the priority groups in the future farming investment scheme, and they can access national reserve payments. Wider national support is available through the farming opportunities for new entrants programme, the Scottish land matching service, the land-based pre-apprenticeship programme and the next generation practical training fund.
Unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Scotland remains committed to direct support and additional voluntary coupled support. Finally, I note that South Lanarkshire is not a crofting county, so there are no crofters there.
Approximately 37 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 16 and 24 are economically inactive. A number of rural and semi-rural professions have historically been more prevalent than others in the public imagination, including forestry, farming, land management and agricultural engineering—the list is endless. However, those professions are associated with the highly marketable and transferable skills that we presently lack in this country. Does the minister agree that expanding the current offering of apprenticeships in the agricultural sector would help to preserve traditional farming practices and benefit the environment, while simultaneously bolstering the productive workforce to the benefit of not just the rural communities but, essentially, everyone?
Before the minister responds, I remind him that we are dealing with supporting new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire.
Indeed, Presiding Officer.
As someone who came from a town and spent a 30-year career in the agriculture sector, I absolutely take on board Davy Russell’s points.
There are a number of ways in which people in South Lanarkshire can get involved in agriculture. The Scottish Government supports entry through the land-based pre-apprenticeship programme and the next generation practical training fund, which ensure that young people gain skills, experience and a route into agricultural careers. Further, organisations such as Ringlink Scotland and Lantra Scotland can help in that regard. There are any number of ways for people to get involved in farming in Scotland.
As part of our programme for government, we announced that we will ask all public authority landholders to look at their holdings to see whether there are opportunities for them to enable new entrants to get into farming.
Jamie Halcro Johnston has a supplementary question. Again, I point out that we are dealing with the principal question, which is on supporting new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire.
Of course, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I declare an interest as a partner in a farming business.
Yesterday, in response to my concerns about how applications to the future farming investment scheme—including those from new entrants in South Lanarkshire—were decided, the minister did not answer my question about whether artificial intelligence had been used in determining who did and who did not get the grant. Therefore, I ask again: was AI used when deciding on FFIS applications?
No.
I can squeeze in a brief supplementary question from Douglas Ross, again with the same caveat.
Fortunately, Presiding Officer, I spoke to a farmer from Lanarkshire last night, and she echoed many of the same concerns that I have heard from farmers across the Highlands and Islands. She was an applicant for the FFIS. She is a young farmer and a new entrant. She is a tenant on a small farm and was looking for only £3,000. Like those of many people, her application was unsuccessful. If AI was not used—that farmer thought that it had been used, and unsuccessfully—why has the scheme rejected so many people? Why were so many ineligible? Does the minister accept that people are suggesting, as that farmer from Lanarkshire did last night, that it feels as though it would have been as well selling raffle tickets for the fund rather than asking people to expend the extreme effort and time that was needed to make complex submissions that were ultimately unsuccessful?
I absolutely take on board Douglas Ross’s point. There are a number of disappointed people in the country—I made that point yesterday when I answered questions.
I reiterate that AI was not used. One of the dangers of social media is that a mistruth can go around the world twice before the truth has got its laces tied. There was no AI used—let us be absolutely clear about that.
The number of people who have not been successful is a reflection of the number of people who applied. It has been a very successful scheme. We got £21 million out to farmers as soon as we possibly could, and we prioritised certain groups. It is a successful scheme, but it shows that, when we introduce other schemes, we have more targeted work to do to make sure that we get funding to as many people as possible.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to change positions.
Health and Social Care
National Health Service (Opinion Poll)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent poll that states that a majority of people in Scotland think the NHS is worse now than it was a decade ago. (S6O-05098)
There is no doubt that, as is the case in other countries, our health and social care services continue to face challenges, not least post Covid. However, with record funding and a focus on reform and renewal, we are empowering our NHS to deliver high-quality care to people across this country. We are investing a record £21.7 billion this year, targeting areas with the longest waits, tackling backlogs and ensuring that patients get the care that they need faster.
Our plans are delivering results. Last year, for example, the NHS performed a record number of hip and knee operations, and new figures show that the number of people on NHS waiting lists has fallen.
In his statement to Parliament on urgent care in the north of Skye, Neil Gray sought to assure local people that he would seek continued improvement. However, a freedom of information response obtained by SOS NHS campaigners showed that there were no advanced nurse practitioners on duty at Portree community hospital on 53 of the 84 nights between 1 July and 22 September 2025. That includes 6 August, when thousands of people attended the Skye highland games in Portree.
NHS staff are being left to work under extreme pressure to deliver on ministerial promises that ministers are not providing them with the resources to deliver on. Is it any wonder that, when communities such as those in the north of Skye get broken promise after broken promise from the Scottish Government, confidence in the future of our NHS is so low?
As I set out in my proactive statement to Parliament, the situation in Skye is improving because there has been increased workforce development and support for increased employment in Portree hospital to ensure that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s review can be honoured. I was able to meet local residents to provide reassurances on the commitment from NHS Highland of continued improvement locally.
Members have a number of supplementary questions, and I will try to take all of them.
One group of my constituents who are undoubtedly seeing a worse performance from the NHS than 10 years ago are those who are seeking gender healthcare from Sandyford, which serves not only NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde but seven other health board areas. Public Health Scotland data that was published last week shows that some 4,000 people are on the waiting list, with fewer than 50 first appointments a year. Can the cabinet secretary give my constituents any reassurance that some dramatic change is on its way, to ensure that that woeful performance turns around?
I acknowledge Mr Harvie’s point and the consistency with which he has raised it, including in our regular one-to-one discussions, for which I am very grateful.
I also recognise the Public Health Scotland figures that he has quoted with regard to the waiting times at the Sandyford and wider services, which are undoubtedly a challenge for us. I, too, have constituents who are in a similar situation, so I recognise the pressure that that puts on them and on staff. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is investing in areas to explore how we can alleviate those pressures on waiting times.
In 2024, there were 50,000 private hospital admissions in Scotland. That was a record high. In the first quarter of 2025, there was another record high. The figure has gone up by 42 per cent in the past five years. The British Medical Association’s survey was clear that the majority of people are choosing that option because the NHS waiting lists are just so long. Is the cabinet secretary not concerned that his Government is privatising the NHS by stealth?
No, absolutely not. I agreed with much of what Willie Rennie had to say until that final part. The basic principles that this Government is taking to reform and renewal work in the health service are based on ensuring that our health service continues to be free at the point of use and publicly owned. Of course, I am concerned by the fact that people are choosing to go through private healthcare. I want to give people the assurance that activity levels are up—and up substantially—because of the investment that we have made and the incredible dedication of staff, and that waiting times are falling. Progress has been made and the plan is working.
The figures for private healthcare in Scotland stand in stark contrast to the usage of private healthcare elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is because we want to protect and enhance NHS capacity in Scotland.
The survey highlights some mismanagement under the Scottish National Party Administration, which is no surprise to any of us. I have a constituent who received a double mastectomy in 2017 and is still awaiting reconstructive surgery in 2025. That is eight years of waiting, with one excuse after another and the Government resetting the clock on several occasions during the process. Does the minister agree that the creative accounting that has been applied to waiting lists is thoroughly letting my constituents down?
That is not what is happening. I want not just to sympathise and empathise, but to make sure that we provide the NHS capacity to allow the member’s constituent to be seen as quickly as possible. I have met other members—notably Dr Gulhane—with constituents who face the same issue. There is a challenge, because some of the theatres that are being used for reconstructive surgery are also being used for the first part of the treatment for people with cancer, ensuring that it gets done first. However, I am cognisant that reconstructive surgery for women with breast cancer is also part of their treatment journey and must be afforded timeously. That is why I am asking boards to consider all that they can do to ensure that it is done as fast as possible.
I remind members that I am a practising nurse in the NHS.
The poll to which Mr Halcro Johnston referred also shows that 88 per cent of people believe that healthcare should be free. The Tories and Labour have been all too happy to carve out the NHS in England to private companies. Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that this SNP Government will always protect the founding principles of the NHS, which are that it is publicly owned and free at the point of need—
Cabinet secretary—
—and will he ensure that it remains well funded and prepared to meet the requirements of all who use it?
Apologies, Ms Haughey. I thought that you had finished.
I absolutely agree with Clare Haughey. Our position could not be clearer: the founding principles of our national health service—that it is publicly owned, publicly operated and free at the point of need—are sacrosanct. That is why our backing of our NHS with record funding—I note that Labour and the Conservatives refused to support that record funding investment for our NHS during the budget vote—comes with a focus on reform. Such reform empowers our NHS to deliver high-quality care to people across the country, and it includes the £25.5 million of additional funding that was announced this week to allow boards to deliver more appointments and procedures.
NHS Grampian (Procurement Practices)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reported concerns regarding patient safety at NHS Grampian arising from faulty sterilising equipment, whether an independent investigation into the procurement practices will be held. (S6O-05099)
I expect that a comprehensive service review of NHS Grampian’s central decontamination service will be carried out. That review will examine the decontamination process and the supporting infrastructure—including the plant, machinery and engineering services—that underpins safe and effective operations.
My whistleblowing constituent Jason Donnelly had his company’s contract with NHS Grampian cancelled after he raised concerns about patient safety. The First Minister is on record, on two separate occasions, calling for an independent investigation into those matters on the basis of evidence that was provided following freedom of information requests. It is clear that there has been maladministration on the part of NHS Grampian. How will the Scottish Government provide redress, in accordance with the Scottish public finance manual, for my constituent’s company for the unjustified wrong that was done to it?
I thank Murdo Fraser for his question and for the correspondence on behalf of his constituent. I have corresponded with both him and the First Minister on the matter in a constituency capacity.
Mr Fraser refers to the situation relating to events in 2018, which involved a different service—endoscopy decontamination—and not to the situation that NHS Grampian is currently facing, which is to do with decontamination elsewhere. At my insistence, officials have met Mr Donnelly in order to explore whether anything further can be done to support him in his position. The advice that I have provided to Mr Fraser, on his behalf, still stands.
Karen Adam has a supplementary question, which should be related to the principal question, please.
Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that the Scottish Government is committed to putting patient safety at the heart of our NHS service delivery? What conversations has he had with NHS Grampian about its recovery?
I ask the cabinet secretary to focus his response on the topic of the question that was placed in the Business Bulletin.
The recovery of NHS Grampian’s services has been hindered by the situation with decontamination services, and patient safety remains our top priority in regard to both.
I met the chair and chief executive of NHS Grampian in October to discuss the work that the health board is doing to explore and develop a new improvement plan, so that people receive the right care at the right time. The Scottish Government has also established an assurance board to support NHS Grampian and to provide assurance that an appropriate plan is developed.
Question 3 is from Ash Regan, who joins us remotely.
Mental Health Support (Vulnerable Women and Girls)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the provision of mental health support for vulnerable women and girls with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related conditions, including where this is the result of commercial sexual exploitation in prostitution. (S6O-05100)
The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that vulnerable women and girls face with complex PTSD and trauma-related conditions, including those that are a result of commercial sexual exploitation. We have funded CSE Aware to provide training and awareness sessions to the wider public and the third sector, including across health services, to ensure that professionals across all settings have the skills and confidence to enable them to respond in the best way. We are committed to ensuring timely access to high-quality mental health services and are working closely with national health service boards and local authorities to expand trauma-informed psychological support for women and girls who are affected by trauma and exploitation.
Evidence shows that women who are exploited through prostitution experience extraordinarily high rates of complex PTSD, and the trauma experienced is comparable to that suffered by state torture survivors and combat veterans. Symptoms include emotional dysregulation, identity disruption and lasting relational difficulties.
Although services such as the Anchor service in Glasgow and the Rivers centre in Edinburgh provide excellent care, specialist complex PTSD assessment and recovery support services remain quite scarce across Scotland. Will the Scottish Government commit to investing in long-term, trauma-informed recovery programmes, specialist complex PTSD diagnosis and practitioner training? Will it commit to recognising such exploitation as gender-based violence that impacts those women and girls deeply, and to ensuring that they get the support and sustained interventions that they need?
I thank Ash Regan for raising those matters in her substantive and supplementary questions. As she will be aware, there has been significant investment in our mental health services and, through our national trauma transformation programme, there has been significant and sustained investment with partners across the public sector to support a trauma-informed approach.
Nonetheless, the matters that Ms Regan raises are extremely serious. I want to assure myself that, collectively—both in the Government and with our partners in local government—we are doing everything that we possibly can to provide support. I therefore undertake to explore the matter in more detail. I would be happy to engage with the member directly if she would find that useful. I will direct my officials to provide me with further briefing on the matter, and I will be happy to write to the member as a means of following up.
NHS Grampian (Financial Scrutiny)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide financial scrutiny over NHS Grampian. (S6O-05101)
NHS Grampian has been escalated to stage 4 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework, which allows it to receive support from the Scottish Government that is commensurate with its challenges.
As a result of that escalation, the Scottish Government has set up an NHS Grampian assurance board, which frequently challenges NHS Grampian’s financial management and position. We have also provided funding for an interim director of improvement and a diagnostic report on NHS Grampian’s financial challenges, and we meet its representatives weekly to enable us to monitor progress against financial targets.
Yesterday’s damning Audit Scotland report warned that contending with a £68 million overspend in 2025-26 will require NHS Grampian to make big changes to its health and social care provision. The full implications of the failures of the Scottish National Party Government and NHS Grampian to manage the finances remain unclear—including whether there will be further delays to the Aberdeen and north centre for haematology, oncology and radiotherapy, which is known as the ANCHOR, and the promised national treatment centre. I have a straight question for the cabinet secretary: will the financial troubles delay the ANCHOR further, and when will we get the national treatment centre that we were promised?
No. Progress continues to be made on the delivery of the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR, and I very much look forward to the additional capacity that that will bring.
On the national treatment centre programme, Liam Kerr will be aware of the capital position that the Government faces on the health portfolio in particular. There is currently a pause, other than in areas that are currently in development or set out under ministerial priority. However, we await the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget statement later this month, and I remain hopeful that, through its provisions, there might be increased capital investment in our economy that would allow us to take forward those projects much more quickly.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the significant financial challenges that it faces. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need, when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary further outline the action that the Scottish Government has undertaken, and continues to undertake, to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to access the care that they need, when they need it?
I absolutely agree with Audrey Nicoll. In this financial year, 2025-26, NHS Scotland boards received increased investment in baseline funding. NHS Grampian received more than £1.34 billion. An additional £5.9 million will drive improvements in NHS Grampian’s accident and emergency performance by supporting initiatives that shift the balance of care and reduce hospital occupancy, including work on hospital at home and discharge without delay.
NHS Grampian was escalated to stage 4 of the support and intervention framework in May this year, and an assurance board is now in place. That assurance board has been working with NHS Grampian to develop the whole-system unscheduled care plan and will ensure that the additional funding delivers the improvements that Audrey Nicoll is looking for.
Too many of the NHS Grampian patients that I represent in Moray are not getting care when they need it. I have heard from a family whose husband and father suffered a heart attack at the weekend. He presented himself to A and E at Dr Gray’s hospital. He stayed in A and E for four days. There was standing room only. Patients were in beds in the corridors outside it. At one point on Saturday, there were six ambulances with patients in them outside A and E because there was no capacity to take them inside.
That has been going on for far too long. While the Government is looking at the financial implications of the NHS Grampian recovery plan, what does the cabinet secretary say to that family and so many others who are not getting the care that they need and deserve—indeed, the care that the staff want to give them? Time after time, they face chronic delays such as the one that that family has suffered.
I would welcome Douglas Ross’s sharing information with me in writing, if he can, about the situation that his constituent has faced, which, on the face of it, sounds as though it involved an unnecessary and unacceptable delay, for which I apologise.
In response to Audrey Nicoll I set out the improvement plan that is in place to support the unscheduled care improvement that is required. Having made the point repeatedly in the chamber—in particular, to colleagues who represent the north-east—I have been very clear that the financial rigour that requires to be observed at NHS Grampian should not and must not get in the way of the improvements to patient care that I expect. I have made that point absolutely clear to NHS Grampian as well as to assurance board colleagues.
Proper and efficient scrutiny of health board finances is critical to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our health service. This week, Audit Scotland revealed that NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the health board that serves many of my constituents, owes nearly £130 million in loans and is on the brink of collapse. It has the highest outstanding loan amount of any Scottish health board.
Can the cabinet secretary provide any reassurance to people in my region that immediate action will be taken to recover NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s financial position?
The member’s supplementary has gone a bit wide. The question was about NHS Grampian.
I will briefly say that I expect Professor Gordon James, the new interim chief executive, to do exactly that.
General Practitioner Walk-in Centres
To ask the Scottish Government how it will determine where the 15 pilots for the planned GP walk-in centres will be located. (S6O-05102)
Improving access to primary care is a key priority for this Government. It builds on our on-going commitment through the service renewal framework to shift more care into community settings and make services more accessible for patients.
As part of that, we will develop options to improve access to primary care, including local walk-in models, which will be open Monday to Sunday and provide more flexibility for patients. We will develop those proposals first as a pilot model that will complement—not duplicate or replace—current core general practice. The Scottish Government will set out further details as those plans develop.
Combined, Ayrshire’s three towns of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston have 33,000 residents. With high levels of deprivation, it is one of the largest populations in Scotland without a hospital. North Ayrshire also has Scotland’s lowest healthy life expectancy—a shockingly low 52 years.
Before the financial crash, an ambulatory care and diagnostic centre was discussed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the three towns should be prioritised for a pilot GP walk-in centre? When will members be informed of which areas have been chosen?
I very much hear the case that Kenneth Gibson is making on behalf of his constituents. Like him, I share the aim of reducing health inequalities, as set out in the population health and service renewal frameworks, which I think is what he is driving at in his question.
By ensuring that services are designed and delivered in ways that are inclusive, equitable and responsive to all communities’ needs, the aim is to target support at those who face the greatest barriers to accessing care because of geography, socioeconomic status, disability, ethnicity or other factors. Success will result in people accessing care more quickly, closer to home and more equitably. With national health service boards and primary care delivery partners, we are developing GP walk-in proposals that will reflect local needs. I will respond not only to Mr Gibson but to other colleagues on that in due course.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.
The Glasgow Local Medical Committee has raised concerns about the First Minister’s recent announcement to establish GP walk-in centres, not least of which is the risk that they pose to continuity of care. Like the LMC, I am deeply concerned about the lack of clarity that is provided around the proposal, including in the answer to Kenneth Gibson.
Surely a lot of planning had already gone into the policy before the announcement, yet when I wrote to the First Minister, I received no information on when the walk-in centres will be delivered, where they will be placed, how they will be staffed and how much they will cost. That strengthens the view that the policy is nothing more than an election stunt.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary can disprove that charge and tell me when the walk-in centres will be delivered, where they will be placed, how they will be staffed and how much each will cost, because that work must have been done.
Work is being done, and I will be more than happy to disprove Sandesh Gulhane’s cynicism when further details can be published.
Sandesh Gulhane raised the LMC’s concerns about continuity of care. I am confident that the LMC will be more reassured of late, given that the Government has committed to the single biggest investment in core GP services—£531 million over the next three years. There will be increases in GP recruitment and faster adoption of innovation, and I am confident that that will be welcomed by GPs across the country.
We must pay attention to Dr Iain Morrison of British Medical Association Scotland, who has pointed out that the existing walk-in centres do not necessarily demonstrate good value for money, which we must keep thinking about. On the back of last week’s announcement, which Neil Gray just referred to, can he confirm how much money GP practices will see before the election next May?
Yes. The budget will contain an additional £98 million for general practice, pending the decision that the Parliament takes following the budget process. I am confident that Labour members, including Martin Whitfield, will support the budget, given the incredibly important investment that it will provide.
I am also confident—not least because we will engage with GPs and organisations such as the BMA—that, although models elsewhere in the United Kingdom have failed, we can make the system work here.
Question 6 was not lodged.
Walk-in Primary Care Clinics (Impact on Health Inequalities)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact that the proposed 15 walk-in primary care clinics will have on health inequalities. (S6O-05104)
Improving access to primary care is a key Government priority, as we build on our on-going commitment through the service renewal framework to shift more care into community settings and make services more accessible for patients. As part of that, we will develop options to improve access to primary care, including through local walk-in models, which will be open Monday to Sunday and will provide more flexibility for patients. We will develop the proposals first through a pilot model, which will complement, not duplicate, current core general practice. The Government will set out further details as the plans develop.
Has the cabinet secretary looked at the evidence from England that shows that walk-in centres led by general practitioners were used primarily by younger, more affluent patients with minor self-limiting conditions? Instead of improving access to core general practice or easing pressure on accident and emergency services, such walk-in centres might, in fact, exacerbate health inequalities by directing investment towards relatively healthy individuals. I am sure that the Royal College of General Practitioners will have raised that concern with the cabinet secretary. It has argued that that approach does not necessarily offer the best value for money, and it has called for greater investment in core general practice services. Before the Government proceeds with any new models of care, perhaps it should first strengthen core general practice to improve access and tackle health inequalities.
I confirm that we are doing both. Pending the Parliament’s support for the Government’s budget, we will, over the next three years, invest £531 million—the single biggest investment in core GP services—to expand those services and employ more GPs so that more people can be seen in general practice. We will also provide more flexibility for patients to ensure that they can get through the front door of the national health service as easily as possible. That is why we are piloting the walk-in clinics. I have been heartened by my engagement, including with deep-end general practices, on how we can use that model to tackle health inequalities, and that engagement will continue.
Baby Loss (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure comprehensive emotional, bereavement and practical support is accessible for people who have experienced baby loss. (S6O-05105)
The loss of a baby, no matter at what stage of pregnancy, has a profound and lasting impact on women and their families, so I offer my deepest sympathy to anyone who has experienced baby loss.
Care and support should be tailored to individual circumstances. For most people, that will come via health boards or third sector organisations, but a small number of people might require specialist mental health services via maternity and neonatal psychological intervention services. Our continued investment since 2019 has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of services that are available. In addition, national health service boards are implementing the national bereavement care pathway for pregnancy and baby loss.
I have been supporting a constituent who experienced a very traumatic miscarriage. Many of the difficulties that she faced arose from miscommunication or, in some respects, a total lack of communication. She was not made aware of much of the support that is available to her.
Although I recognise the extensive work that the minister mentioned to improve miscarriage care standards, in partnership with those who know exactly what it means when we get that wrong, it is troubling to hear of instances in which those standards have not been put into practice. What further steps can be taken to ensure that health boards have the necessary resources to provide comprehensive training for staff who work in dedicated early pregnancy units, so that those who experience baby loss, wherever they are, receive the support and compassion that they deserve?
I thank Emma Roddick for raising the issue in the chamber. I recently attended a round table in the Parliament led by the baby loss charity Held In Our Hearts. It was attended by those who had experienced baby loss, by researchers and, importantly, by health boards. It was a very powerful event. To enable the best support for those families, a combination of all those stakeholders, working together, is needed. Earlier this year, I was pleased to announce the delivery framework for miscarriage care in Scotland, which is supported by £1.5 million in funding. The framework sets the expectation that NHS boards ensure that all staff receive training in providing compassionate, culturally competent care after miscarriage and other early pregnancy complications.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business in order to allow front-bench teams to change positions.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Maternity Services