Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I advise members that there is quite a bit of interest in supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in questions and responses as far as possible.
Marine Fund Scotland 2025-26
To ask the Scottish Government how its marine fund Scotland 2025-26 will support businesses and organisations in coastal communities. (S6O-04800)
The marine fund Scotland is now open for this year’s applications, with £14 million of support available. I urge all those who have ideas for projects that will help marine industries to evolve and flourish to apply.
Since 2021, the marine fund Scotland has awarded more than £55 million in grants to 330 projects, facilitating £121 million of investment. With that funding, the Scottish Government is backing our marine economy, which is crucial to the economic, social and cultural fabric of our rural, coastal and island communities.
By how much have Scotland’s coastal communities been short-changed since Brexit, when we left the European Union? Is there any indication that the current United Kingdom Government is interested in giving Scotland its rightful share of marine funding?
We can look at nations that are in the EU right now to see what we could be getting if we were still in the EU. For example, Denmark is receiving funding through the EU’s new European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund. Denmark has a smaller sea area and marine sector than Scotland, yet it is receiving multiyear funding that is the equivalent of about £25 million per year. We can compare that with the £14 million-worth of funding that we currently receive from the UK Government.
The UK Government recently announced a new £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. We are calling for a rightful share of that budget to be devolved and allocated to Scotland. I have pressed the UK Government for confirmation of that, but I have not yet received a reply. I share stakeholders’ frustrations that the UK Government did not engage with devolved nations or industry before announcing that new fund. If it is not devolved, it risks duplicating current funding programmes, causing confusion for stakeholders and diluting its intended benefits.
Will the cabinet secretary set out how she could use the marine fund Scotland 2025-26 to support the sustainable management and potential reopening of the Solway cockle fishery? Will she also set out how she expects projects to be successful and to deliver long-term value when applicants may not receive confirmation of funding until late October, yet all work must be completed and expended by the end of March? That is a window of just five months, which makes a summer survey this year without other support impossible. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and stakeholders?
I encourage anyone with an interest to apply to the fund. I know that officials will be working at pace to process the applications to ensure that there is a good chance of the money being fully utilised. On Finlay Carson’s last point, I am more than happy to have a meeting. I will be in touch to make those arrangements.
Livestock Culling and Meat Consumption
I apologise for my late arrival to the chamber.
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether policies such as culling livestock and promoting less meat consumption could have a detrimental impact on the rural economy. (S6O-04801)
The Scottish Government does not have any policy on culling livestock or mandating reductions in meat consumption. We recognise the vital role that livestock farming plays in supporting rural economies, food security and Scotland’s cultural and natural heritage. Our approach is to support farmers and crofters to produce high-quality food sustainably. Meat is a good source of protein with a number of micronutrients and can be enjoyed as part of a healthy, balanced diet.
I seek further confirmation from the minister on the policy position that he just mentioned. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has said that nearly half of the emissions reductions in Scotland by 2035 will come from cutting livestock numbers by 26 per cent.
We are already seeing the impact of such measures and that direction of travel with the closure of the Scotbeef abattoir in Inverurie, which is costing 90 jobs. At this rate, it will not be net zero emissions by 2045; it will be net zero jobs.
Will the minister confirm—yes or no—whether the livestock cuts that the Climate Change Committee mentions are official Government policy?
No, they are not official Government policy. The CCC’s advice is exactly that: advice. We will be setting out our response to that advice imminently. However, let me be crystal clear: we intend to meet our net zero commitments in a way that supports our vital agricultural sector and our wider rural economy. Our livestock sector is a critical part of that, and this Government has no policy to reduce livestock.
We provide direct support to livestock farmers—and are the only part of the UK to do so. An example of that is the Scottish suckler beef calf scheme, which pays £40 million a year directly into farmers’ pockets.
New Transmission Infrastructure (Discussions with Agricultural Organisations)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with agricultural organisations regarding any increases in production costs as a result of new transmission infrastructure. (S6O-04802)
The Scottish Government has not had any discussions with agricultural organisations on potential changes to production costs as a result of new transmission infrastructure.
Applications for new transmission infrastructure are made under the Electricity Act 1989, which includes provisions to ensure that landowners receive fair compensation where land, or rights over land, are acquired by compulsion for the development of energy infrastructure, with established legal frameworks and dispute resolution mechanisms available through the court system.
That is deeply disappointing for farmers. Following my question in April on the loss of agricultural land to the development of overhead transmission lines, Jim Fairlie had to write to the Presiding Officer admitting that he had got his answer badly wrong. It is painfully clear that the Scottish National Party Government does not understand the impact of energy consenting decisions on rural communities. Farmers will be listening with despair.
Does the minister agree that net zero should not be achieved at the expense of farmers’ livelihoods and—[Interruption.]—the SNP Government must urgently establish the impact that new transmission infrastructure will have on the agricultural sector?
I lost the second part of Tess White’s question because of the noise from her colleagues. If I heard some of that correctly, I think that her main point is that the Scottish Government favours net zero over farming. That is simply not the case. We have shown time and again that we are working with our farming community, and we want to ensure that we achieve net zero by it working with us.
Gull Management (Eyemouth)
To ask the Scottish Government how many licences for gull management were awarded in Eyemouth for 2025. (S6O-04803)
NatureScot has received four applications to manage gulls to protect public health and safety in Eyemouth this year, and three licences have been issued. One licence was refused, and NatureScot has met that applicant and is working with them on the details of their application.
Despite acknowledging that aggressive seagulls are a health and safety issue, NatureScot originally refused to grant any gull management licences to businesses in Eyemouth. Instead, it told my constituents to use dogs. However, within 24 hours, NatureScot U-turned and granted two of the licence applications, apologising for the way in which those applications were handled. Will the minister, too, apologise to my constituents, who have described the gull licensing process as “soul destroying”? Does he endorse NatureScot’s ridiculous suggestion to use dogs in a rooftop seagull sniffer pawtrol? If so, should my constituents be training spaniels to scale scaffolding, attaching Labradors to drones or giving parachutes to poodles?
We recognise that it is an issue for people, so the tone in which Rachael Hamilton has just approached that question is rather disappointing. We also recognise that, when NatureScot has got it wrong, it has rectified that, which the member has clearly demonstrated. If NatureScot is going to apologise to her constituents, that is up to NatureScot to do.
Will you?
If NatureScot is going to apologise to her constituents, that is up to it to do.
On what we are doing with regard to licences for seagull management, I have had conversations with Douglas Ross, Fergus Ewing and many others on the issue, and we accept that there are issues with seagulls that are causing problems for people living in certain areas. That is why I am hosting a seagull summit later in the year, in the north. It will be in Inverness or Nairn, or somewhere in that area, but that has not been decided yet. When we have that summit, we will discuss what happens with seagulls in urban populations right across the country.
From Eyemouth to Elgin, people are being attacked by gulls, but NatureScot does not record any of those instances. Does the minister believe that NatureScot should record that information and take cognisance of it when it approves or rejects licence applications?
That is a fair point. If Mr Ross wants me to put that on the record with NatureScot, I will certainly do so when I have discussions with it. The purpose of getting a licence is to deal with seagulls that are causing health and safety issues—that is already in the licensing application process. I am happy to take on board Mr Ross’s point. When we discuss further how to protect people from marauding seagulls, we will take that into account.
Food and Drink Export Statistics
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the latest export statistics for Scotland’s food and drink sector. (S6O-04804)
Scottish food and drink exports remain a cornerstone of the economy and were valued at £7.5 billion in 2024. The latest figures from HM Revenue and Customs, which are for the first quarter of 2025, highlight a positive outlook, with a rise of 5.1 per cent compared with the same period last year.
The Scottish Government is committed to helping the sector with its exporting ambitions. Since 2014, we have invested more than £7 million in the food and drink industry export plan and in supporting market growth through a network of global specialists. A new six-point export plan has recently been announced to further support businesses, including those in the food and drink sector, in expanding their international reach.
Although the Scottish food and drink sector undoubtedly punches above its weight—I welcome the latest figures on that—there must nonetheless be opportunities to grow the export market. In that regard, one clear structural barrier is the lack of a direct ferry for freight to continental Europe. Given the cabinet secretary’s interest as champion of Scotland’s food and drink sector, will she raise the issue with the Deputy First Minister, whom I have already met on the matter, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, with whom I have corresponded on it, to finally get the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal over the line?
Annabelle Ewing raises a really important point. Scottish ministers of course want Scotland’s sea connections with Europe to be enhanced. I know that the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport have met the project sponsors regarding the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal to highlight that support and to offer more practical advice.
The recently announced sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, which the Scottish Government had long been calling for, is expected to remove some of the barriers that our exporters have faced since Brexit and that have compromised the viability of projects such as the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court to get the SPS agreement over the line, but I assure the member that engagement between our officials is still very much on-going.
It is, of course, great to see Scotland’s wonderful produce doing so well in export markets. The sector is a major employer that accounts for 10 per cent of jobs in areas such as the Highlands and Islands. However, there are recruitment challenges in the sector. Although short-term factors are undoubtedly involved in that, we must also plan for the future. The Royal Highland Show is just round the corner, and it will surely have a focus on rural skills and jobs. What more can the cabinet secretary do to promote jobs in the food and drink sector as a career choice?
Tim Eagle raises an important point. We want a thriving food and drink sector, because it is important for our economy. Not that long ago, we had a session in Parliament with our wider food and drink industry, which was focused specifically on skills and seeing what more we can do on that. Some really great programmes are being undertaken in our agriculture sector. For example, there is the work that Ringlink Scotland and the machinery rings are doing to get younger people into the industry. A whole host of work is going on.
I am more than happy to have further discussions with Tim Eagle. I look forward to catching up with him at the Royal Highland Show, as I no doubt will, and engaging in more such discussions in the next few days.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Bird Species)
To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates that NatureScot will complete its review of the bird species in schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (S6O-04805)
The review of species that are listed in schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been completed by NatureScot. The Scottish Government is currently considering the findings from the review and will provide an update on the next steps in due course.
Our approach to environmental issues has changed enormously since 1981, and it is only right that legislation is considered periodically to determine whether it needs to be replaced or amended. The Scottish Government has the powers to prohibit the hunting of ptarmigan while a lengthy process takes its course. Will the minister clarify whether that approach has been considered?
I appreciate the concerns that David Torrance has raised about the review’s timescales. However, good governance requires that consideration be given to the full range of evidence that relates to all red and amber-listed species that are listed in schedule 2 to the 1981 act. Land management practices such as habitat improvement and predator control can have benefits for red-listed bird species in certain circumstances, and we want to ensure that the schedule 2 changes do not lead to unintended consequences.
When the minister considers the review, will he also commit to considering full cost recovery from licence applicants so that the public no longer subsidise private interests when licences are granted for the killing of protected species?
As I have outlined to members, we are reviewing the piece of work that has been done and we will publish the review when the time comes.
I have been made aware of a potential release of non-native game birds in Shetland. Islands are more sensitive to the establishment of non-native species, which can impact the environment and compete with native species. Will the minister work with NatureScot to increase awareness of the importance of not bringing in or releasing non-native species in islands? Will he also consider legislative measures to restrict non-native game bird releases?
Beatrice Wishart has raised a very specific point, which I do not have access to information on. If she writes to me, I will be more than happy to look at the issue and get back to her.
Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 (Farming and Food Production in Ayrshire)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any progress with the provisions in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, including how they may affect farming and food production in Ayrshire. (S6O-04806)
The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 will commence on 16 June, which will provide the powers to introduce the future support framework that was consulted on and enable payments to be made under the four tiers. We remain committed to direct payments, and the act provides flexibility to deliver them throughout changing circumstances while realising our vision for agriculture and delivering on our commitment to support agriculture and rural communities. As the act requires, the rural support plan will set out how support will deliver on the act’s objectives and the Scottish Government’s wider priorities over a five-year period starting from 2026.
As the minister knows, we are very proud of the wonderful food offerings that we have across Ayrshire, many of which I have mentioned in the chamber before. One of our hopes is to see such products on local supermarket shelves much more often, so that local people can easily identify and buy locally produced food in order to support our producers. Will the 2024 act help to encourage that? Will the minister update Parliament on how he is engaging with the sector to improve the position on that?
I absolutely take on board Willie Coffey’s point. He has been a very strong advocate for his constituency. We have committed £15 million over 2023 to 2026 to support the delivery of Scotland’s food and drink strategy, which is sustaining Scotland and supplying the world. That funding facilitates a range of activities and direct engagement with grocery retailers in order to help to increase the volume of Scottish food and drink on our retail shelves. Additionally, we work closely with the Scottish Grocers Federation and support its go local campaign, which is helping to transform convenience stores with dedicated display spaces for local produce.
Venison in Catering (Support for Public Bodies)
To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its policies on managing deer numbers, how it is supporting public bodies such as local authorities and national health service boards to use more Scottish venison in any catering that they are responsible for. (S6O-04807)
I thank Roz McCall for that question because it allows me to put on the record that, although menu content will be decided locally, much Scottish Government work is under way to facilitate the uptake of venison across the public sector. That includes a successful pilot with Wild Jura Venison, Argyll and Bute Council and Food for Life to supply venison in six primary schools. Officials are working collaboratively to explore opportunities to increase demand for venison and develop options to increase supply by helping the sector to make the most of the various routes to market through approaches such as wholesale and framework agreements, which are widely used across the public sector.
I listened intently to the minister’s answer, but data following a freedom of information request indicates that public bodies tend not to include venison in pupil and patient meals. The nutritional benefits of venison have been emphasised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which teaches schoolchildren about venison at its hill-to-grill educational events. In an effort to improve deer management and make good use of quality meat, Perthshire-based Glenkilrie Larder participates in a project that involves venison being donated to local schools and food banks.
At a critical point in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill’s passage through the Parliament, what additional steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that this healthy, low-fat meat appears on school and hospital menus across the nation?
Roz McCall raises a very good point. I would like to correct her on one issue—I think that Finlay Carson has said to me previously that his local authority supplies venison. However, she is absolutely right to make her point. We need to stop looking at deer management as a problem; we should embrace it and add venison to our natural larder. The Scottish Government is committed to doing that.
As a high-protein sustainable food source, Scottish venison should be available to everyone. However, I have heard reports of land managers burying deer rather than allowing them to be processed to feed the nation. What action is the Scottish Government taking to prevent wealthy landowners from blocking venison for the many?
I do not accept the premise of that question. We are going through vital deer management processes to allow us to restore nature and reduce damage to habitats. As I said, deer are not a problem species; they are part of our natural heritage. We should be able to put venison into our public food processing and our larders so that we can all enjoy it.
Health and Social Care
Recruitment by Care Home Providers (Brexit)
To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of care home providers have reported recruitment difficulties since the United Kingdom left the European Union. (S6O-04808)
In 2018, the Scottish Government published a report on the contribution of EU workers in the social care workforce, and that process was repeated for comparison in 2022. In 2018, 37.9 per cent of care home provider respondents reported experiencing difficulty in recruiting staff. That figure increased to 75 per cent in the 2022 report. Compounding those difficulties, in 2022, respondents across all services reported a drop in the number of applications from EU nationals. Although it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from other pressures on the social care labour market, the 2022 report found that Brexit is among the factors that are resulting in the sector having less flexibility to respond to on-going labour supply challenges.
The Labour Government’s changes to visa regulations, including those relating to salary thresholds, visa fees and sponsor licences, have created chronic staff shortages. What discussions have Scottish Government ministers had with their UK counterparts regarding caring roles being added to the shortage occupation list in order to ease visa restrictions?
Gordon MacDonald is correct that the UK Labour Government’s plans to end international recruitment of care workers will have a profoundly negative and potentially catastrophic impact on the social care sector. We have tried to engage with the UK Government by providing clear evidence-based proposals outlining workable adjustments that would better support Scotland’s labour market without compromising the UK Government’s broader objectives. However, Labour’s immigration white paper shows no substantive recognition of the policy proposals that the Scottish Government submitted.
Question 2 is from Kevin Stewart, who joins us remotely.
NHS Grampian (NHS Scotland National Performance Framework)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it has taken to support NHS Grampian since it was escalated to stage 4 of NHS Scotland’s national performance framework for finance, leadership and governance. (S6O-04809)
My officials continue to work closely with NHS Grampian daily, and the Government remains committed to providing the health board with the support that it needs to stabilise and sustainably improve.
One of the initial stages of the escalation is the whole-system diagnostic that we have commissioned, which involves KPMG reviewing key areas of NHS Grampian activity. We expect the initial findings of the review to be available by mid-July. In turn, that will inform a tailored package of support and the agreement of an improvement plan for NHS Grampian, with detailed actions and timescales.
A key thing that I have concerns about is the additional bureaucracies that NHS Grampian has put in place. One way of solving difficulties and getting the board back on track is to listen to the front-line staff who feel ignored. Will the work that is being undertaken involve communicating with and, more importantly, listening to front-line staff, who often have the ability to resolve some of the difficulties that exist?
Yes, it absolutely will. I acknowledge, welcome and appreciate the work that Mr Stewart has consistently done to represent the interests of local staff, as well as patients. I agree that meaningful partnership working will be key in the successful development and implementation of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan.
The board must work closely with its staff and trade union and professional organisation representatives in its area partnership forum. It must ensure that it listens and responds to concerns that staff raise and that staff views inform future activity. Similarly, we expect the meaningful engagement of local clinical views, not least through the health board’s area clinical forum.
The Government’s assurance board will look for evidence of meaningful partnership working in the development and implementation of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan, so that we can benefit from front-line staff’s ability to see a way to navigate through the challenges, as Mr Stewart has rightly pointed out.
Swingeing cuts in NHS Grampian will decimate as many as 79 services for patients, including a vital X-ray facility at Kincardine community hospital. In a bid to cut down overtime pay, face-to-face appointments that are deemed unnecessary could soon stop. That is a crisis of the Scottish National Party’s making, due to years of underfunding. It is clear that balance sheets are being prioritised over vulnerable patients. Will the cabinet secretary tell my constituents how long this dire situation will go on?
I expect NHS Grampian and all boards to take proportionate decisions that ensure that service delivery is financially sustainable, as well as sustainable in relation to what patients can expect to receive from those who provide services.
NHS Grampian is in a particularly acute position, which is why it has been escalated through the framework—not in a punitive way but in a way that provides support. The work that the Government and KPMG will provide to the board is expected to ensure that options are available to protect patient-facing services and to enhance the performance of NHS Grampian so that its patients can feel the benefit.
Ambulances are a lifeline at a time of desperate need, but figures show that, so far in 2025, more than half of all ambulances in Scotland have been stuck on hospital forecourts for more than 45 minutes. In one of those was my constituent, who, after having had a stroke, spent seven hours overnight in a sweltering ambulance, with no food or drink, waiting for a bed in the Aberdeen royal infirmary. A spokesperson for NHS Grampian said that that was regrettable and apologised, but the fact remains that it is an institution at stage 4 that is facing sustained pressure and has the lowest number of beds per head of population in the country. What is the minister doing to support NHS Grampian to increase capacity?
The situation that Mercedes Villalba recounts is not only regrettable but unacceptable. That is an example of why we have escalated NHS Grampian to stage 4 of the escalation framework, so that we can provide additional assistance for it to improve its unscheduled care pathway. We recognise the difficulty in ambulance turnaround times at Aberdeen royal infirmary, which was part of the reason for the critical incident that took place before Christmas.
Everything that we are doing is to support a better flow of patients through the system, including through enhanced frailty services in the ARI, the call before convey work that the Scottish Ambulance Service is doing and an escalation in hospital-at-home services. The work in all those areas is to alleviate pressure on unscheduled care pathways so that the experience of Mercedes Villalba’s constituent does not happen to others.
Patient Transport (Eskdale)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that residents in Eskdale can access patient transport for hospital appointments. (S6O-04810)
In October 2024, the Scottish Government published the transport to health delivery plan, which sets out commitments in relation to transport and healthcare across the work of the health and social care directorate and Transport Scotland. Through that plan, we will continue to work with national health service boards to re-emphasise the need for them to consider patient access as part of the care pathway. The plan also recognises that collaborative working among NHS boards, regional transport partnerships and other partners, such as community transport providers, is absolutely necessary in service planning and decision making, and that it helps to address patients having to travel longer distances to access healthcare.
Langholm is one of the places that the Scottish Government should start with. A recent public meeting saw more than 300 people crowd into the Buccleuch centre there, and one of the top issues that they raised was their difficulty in getting to Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary in Dumfries. In a best-case scenario, the journey involves a round trip of six buses and takes more than four hours. That is not realistic for the elderly, the sick and those who are unable to drive. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, does he recognise that that is an unfair ask? Will he raise these concerns with the health board and ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place? For example, could the use of technology be increased, could some clinics be re-established at Thomas Hope hospital, and could more use be made of services at Carlisle hospital, as was the case in the past?
I very much appreciate Oliver Mundell raising this issue on behalf of his constituents and his tenor in doing so. As I come from an island community, I recognise that travelling for healthcare and other services is a challenge and is often necessary, but we want to minimise the level of challenge and make services as accessible as possible. Following Oliver Mundell’s representation, I will, of course, raise that concern with NHS Dumfries and Galloway and explore the alternative options that he has set out.
Yesterday, the Scottish Government set out the service renewal framework, which is about shifting the balance of care and using innovation and technology to provide people with more equitable access to services. The points that Oliver Mundell raises therefore very much align with our policy direction.
NHS Dentistry (Dumfries and Galloway)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that nearly 40 per cent of adults in Dumfries and Galloway are not registered with a national health service dentist. (S6O-04811)
In recognition of the particularly challenging circumstances in Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Government will continue to provide additional financial assistance to the local health board in 2025-26, including to deliver additional evening clinics for unregistered priority patients. My officials also continue to work closely with the health board, and they meet the director of dentistry regularly.
The reality is that the registration rate is not just the lowest in the country; it is getting worse. Nearly 3,000 fewer adults are registered than there were at this time last year, so it is pretty clear that the Government’s current approach is simply not working. Does the minister recognise that, had the Government acted on the warnings from NHS Dumfries and Galloway, more than five years ago, that a crisis was looming, my constituents would not have had to go private to get dental healthcare? Given that the actions of the Government are clearly not working, what more does it plan to do, and when will that start to have an impact?
As I said in my earlier answer, I recognise that there are issues in Dumfries and Galloway, and the Government is currently working closely with the health board on them. The situation that Mr Smyth describes is occurring not just within Scotland but across the four nations of the United Kingdom. I have been working closely with my counterparts and with the directors of dentistry across each of those nations to ensure that we can reach a four-country solution. We need to improve the pipeline of dentists coming into the country and ensure that those who are in Scotland after training in other countries have the right UK training to allow them to step up to become dentists here. In line with this year’s programme for government, we have increased dentistry funding by 15 per cent, which is the highest-ever proportional increase for the sector. We are also working closely with rural boards to ensure that specific payments that are intended to encourage dentists to move to rural and island locations are more targeted.
Elena Whitham has a supplementary question—hopefully with reference to the question, which of course concerns access to NHS dentistry in Dumfries and Galloway.
As the minister has touched on, increasing the dental workforce plays a crucial role in improving access to NHS dentistry, in Dumfries and Galloway and across all our rural areas more widely. Can the minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support the dental workforce pipeline, especially in rural areas, where the need is acute, with far too many of our constituents travelling extensively to secure treatment, oftentimes when they are in pain?
The Scottish Government’s operational improvement plan sets out a package of actions to improve the NHS dental workforce now and into the future, in Dumfries and Galloway and across Scotland. As I have said, it is being supported by additional funding in 2025-26. Alongside that, we are working with NHS boards to refine the financial incentives that are in place to support dentists in moving to work in rural areas, thus supporting sustainable access across Scotland.
We have a supplementary from Finlay Carson. Again, it should be with reference to Dumfries and Galloway.
Can the minister state whether access to NHS dentists has been getting better or worse since the Government’s additional funding was made available?
I would like to report—if I can find this in my notes—that Public Health Scotland statistics published in May show that more than 4.2 million courses of treatment were delivered to patients in the 2024-25 financial year—
This is not about Dumfries and Galloway.
More than 1 million patients were seen by NHS dentists in the quarter ending March 2025. As I have indicated, I recognise that we have—
Is that up or down?
Members, could we let the minister respond? I think that she is getting on to Dumfries and Galloway.
As I have indicated, I recognise that there are issues in Dumfries and Galloway—
Is it better or worse?
—and we are doing what we can to improve access to dentistry across the region.
General Practitioner Waiting Times (NHS Grampian)
To ask the Scottish Government what urgent action it is taking to address general practitioner waiting times in NHS Grampian, in light of reports of on-going staffing shortages, delayed discharges and critical incidents. (S6O-04812)
I want to make it easier for people to see their GPs, and I am taking steps to address the challenges that general practice faces. That includes ensuring that a greater proportion of new national health service funding goes to primary and community care. GPs play an incredibly important role, and we want to see more of them in Scotland. That is why we are determined to increase the number of GPs by 800 by 2027, with an additional 360 GPs having been added since 2017. As of 11 November 2024, the GP specialty training establishment in Scotland stands at just over 1,200 places, which is a record level.
A number of constituents have contacted me regarding their inability to get GP appointments within a reasonable timescale. Last week, NHS Grampian announced £23 million-worth of spending cuts, which will mean stopping certain face-to-face appointments and giving routine test results only over the phone or by letter. What steps are being taken to improve long-term workforce planning for medical services in places such as Inverurie, to ensure sustainable staffing levels and continuity of care for local patients?
I reiterate to Douglas Lumsden the point that I made in my first answer: that we have a record GP training establishment in Scotland, which currently sits at 1,200 places. We have more to do to ensure that trainees are able to get into employment, and we are working with the British Medical Association’s general practice committee on finding a sustainable route through the funding pressures, which are hindering the employment of GPs in Scotland.
I point Mr Lumsden to the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme—ScotGEM—which specifically covers rural medical degrees, to ensure that doctors coming through the system have rural medical training so that we can support rural communities that need access to general practitioners here in Scotland.
GPs are very much at the heart of our health system, so it is vital that we move forward with work to increase timely access. Can the cabinet secretary advise how the steps that are outlined in the programme for government will build on the Scottish Government’s work to improve GP waiting times in NHS Grampian?
I very much recognise, and am grateful for, Audrey Nicoll’s point about improving access to general practice. I recognise that too many of our constituents are feeling that frustration. The steps that we have outlined in the programme for government include enabling 100,000 enhanced GP appointments for patients who have key risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, obesity and smoking, and who are not currently being treated. That is a new investment in general practice as we look to shift more care to the community in a more preventative way, which is the subject of the service renewal framework and the population health framework, both of which were published this week.
More investment will help to sustain general practice and ensure that patients can access services locally, and we are working with the BMA to bring that forward. That is alongside the expansion of pharmacy first services, through which, for many ailments, pharmacies are the recommended first port of call for patients.
Campaign groups from NHS Grampian right down to my own South Scotland region believe that there is a shortfall of as many as 1,800 GPs, and that that number is a more realistic target if the Government hopes to meet its ambition of achieving better-quality care that is closer to home.
Our health service is crying out for more GPs, yet a cut in GP funding means that practices are unable to recruit the staff that they desperately need. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that although the training of medical students is important, it does not help matters when students are unable to get employment after graduation?
I very much recognise the view expressed in Carol Mochan’s final point. That is why we are increasing our investment in general practice. We remain committed to increasing the number of GPs in Scotland by 800 by 2027. GP headcount has been consistently at more than 5,000, and the number of GPs has increased by 360 since 2017. This year, we are investing more than £2.6 million in a range of measures to support GPs to remain in the workplace.
We are also making good progress against our GP recruitment and retention plan, and we have established a national framework to support the development of early career fellowships. NHS Education for Scotland has completed its review of the GP retainer scheme, which will be open to new entrants from August this year.
In my question in response to the cabinet secretary’s statement yesterday, I mentioned the constructive meeting that I had with Dr Robert Lockhart from Elgin and his colleagues. Although the cabinet secretary gave me a positive response yesterday, he did not answer the specific points that I raised. I therefore ask him again: what percentage of the health budget is currently spent on general practice, and what percentage does he believe should be spent on it to allow GPs to deliver all the services that they believe they can?
I recognise that the BMA has set out its position that the percentage of the NHS budget that goes into general practice is not sufficient. That is why we are working with the BMA to increase the investment going into general practice. As I said in response to Carol Mochan, we have already increased general practice funding this year.
Further initiatives have come through the budget and through the programme for government, including the additional cardiovascular enhanced services that we negotiated with the BMA. However, I recognise Douglas Ross’s point that, if we are to truly shift the balance of care, we need to shift the balance of resource. I am currently working with the BMA in order to achieve just that.
NHS Tayside (Infrastructure)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will support NHS Tayside to improve its physical infrastructure to help to deliver better health outcomes. (S6O-04813)
The Scottish Government has increased NHS Tayside’s formula capital by 5 per cent for essential maintenance and equipment replacement. We have also approved projects to progress with multiyear essential maintenance upgrades for electrical and ventilation systems at Ninewells hospital and Perth royal infirmary, which will require more than £60 million of investment.
Over the next two years, we will also provide £12 million of capital funding to take over the lease of four general practitioner practices, which are Comrie medical centre, Stanley medical practice, Arthurstone medical centre and Nethergate medical practice.
We are also working with all health boards to develop a whole-system national health service infrastructure investment plan, and we will shortly be asking NHS Tayside to identify its three strategic capital priorities.
Ninewells hospital has served the people of Dundee for more than 50 years, but the difficulty and costs of maintaining the ageing building are growing. That raises the question whether Tayside would be better served by a new hospital. Will the cabinet secretary conduct a review that compares the cost-effectiveness of continued maintenance versus a new facility?
I refer back to the conclusion of my first answer to Maurice Golden, when I said that we will be asking NHS Tayside to identify its three strategic capital priorities. That is the review that he is asking for, and it will inform the whole-system NHS infrastructure investment plan. We will await its priorities with interest.
NHS Lothian (Education and Tutoring for Sick Children)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and NHS Lothian regarding the provision of education and tutoring for sick children at the Royal hospital for children and young people in Edinburgh and other national health service facilities and services. (S6O-04814)
Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 places a statutory duty on local authorities to make special arrangements for any child or young person who is absent from school for a prolonged period, due to ill health, to enable them to continue their education while they are away from their regular school.
I confirm that officials have discussed the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council. NHS Lothian and the City of Edinburgh Council recognise their responsibilities under the statutory duty, and they have set up the Little France teaching centre within the hospital. The centre uses teachers who are employed by the council, and that service is available for all children and young people during their stay in the hospital.
The minister should be aware of the case involving Lawrence, a constituent of mine who suffers from leukaemia. Lawrence experienced the distress of watching other children on his ward receive education from the City of Edinburgh Council’s hospital schooling service at the sick kids hospital, while he was denied it because he attends a school in the independent sector, and his parents could not pay the £115 an hour that the council charges in such circumstances.
Since I raised Lawrence’s case, more parents have been in touch with me—and with bodies that represent independent schools—to highlight similar injustices. Several cases involve children with a disability being refused access to specialist equipment, such as aids for hearing impairment, or having it withdrawn, because they attend independent schools.
Will the minister commit to working urgently with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, councils, the independent schools sector and NHS boards to reach a resolution that ends that unjust discrimination against sick and disabled children in Scotland?
In response to Mr Hoy’s follow-up question, I was aware of the situation involving his constituent Lawrence. As I believe that Ms Gilruth said when Mr Hoy previously raised the issue, ultimately, the decision is one for her to take. However, I am very happy to work with her to address the situation from a health perspective.
I have been contacted by constituents who share Mr Hoy’s concern about the issue. Councillors say that the policy regarding learning for sick children who attend independent schools is based on Scottish Government guidance, which places the duty for such tuition on independent schools. It is clear that there has been miscommunication. What effort is the Scottish Government making to inform parents, schools and health boards of that policy?
Foysol Choudhury is right. Although the Scottish Government has provided national guidance on the continued responsibility to provide education while a child or young person is unable to attend school due to ill health, decisions about the fees to be charged for hospital education services are a matter for local authorities and NHS boards to consider, along with independent schools, as appropriate.
As I have just said in response to Mr Hoy, I am very happy to work with Ms Gilruth from a health perspective to ensure that we find a solution to the situation.
Rapid Cancer Diagnostic Services (Eligibility Criteria)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the eligibility criteria for rapid cancer diagnostic services, including the rationale for them usually only being available to those over the age of 18, in light of any unique challenges faced by children and young people being diagnosed with cancer. (S6O-04815)
Rapid cancer diagnostic services provide primary care with access to a fast-track diagnostic pathway for non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, such as weight loss and fatigue. All RCDSs and non-specific cancer pathways across the UK have similar, clinically agreed criteria for referral.
There are specific and well-established referral guidelines for children and young people as part of the Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer, which have recently been clinically reviewed. The updated guidelines will be published in July. That will be supported by the provision of education resources to support primary care to make the most appropriate referral to the most appropriate pathway.
Even though cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in children and young people under the age of 25, members of that group often face significant barriers to a timely cancer diagnosis, either because of misdiagnosis or because they have exhibited vague or non-specific symptoms. They often have to visit their general practitioner or other health providers multiple times before being referred and diagnosed.
Despite those challenges, Scottish Government initiatives to support early diagnosis, such as rapid diagnostic centres, are typically focused on older Scots and adults rather than on children and young people. Given the clear need for earlier and more accurate diagnosis of people in that age group, what action is the Government taking to address that gap?
I thank Miles Briggs for bringing that important issue to the chamber. Clearly, we need a separation between adult and paediatric services. To that end, in September 2021, we launched “Collaborative and Compassionate Cancer Care: The Cancer Strategy for Children and Young People in Scotland 2021-2026”. The strategy emphasises the Scottish Government’s commitment to improving services nationally and supporting a consistent approach to care and treatment across the country. The established managed service network for children and young people with cancer, which is a dedicated network of cancer specialists, will continue to support children and young people with cancer and to deliver on that strategy.
How are rapid cancer diagnostic services helping to speed up treatment and improve outcomes for people across Scotland?
A report published by the University of Strathclyde in February 2024 found that the services are achieving what they set out to do, which is to find cancer, while delivering at speed a high standard of quality care, and that the overall median time from RCDS referral to diagnosis was 14 days.
To date, we have established six successful rapid cancer diagnostic services, significantly reducing the time taken from referral to diagnosis for people with non-specific symptoms of cancer. Our sixth RCDS was launched last month in NHS Forth Valley.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change position.