Official Report 374KB pdf
14:03
The next item of business is general questions. To accommodate as many questions as possible, I ask for concise questions and answers.
ASSIST Workers (Pay Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding the pay of ASSIST—advocacy, support, safety, information and services together—workers. (S7O-00251)
Local government pay is a matter for local authorities, but the Scottish Government is aware of the proposed changes to pay and grading in Glasgow City Council and the impact of that on staff at ASSIST. Officials continue to engage with the council to understand the implications of the changes and to ensure the sustainability of local services.
We are maintaining funding to the ASSIST service through the victim-centred approach fund and the delivering equally safe fund. As is set out in our programme for government, we are committed to providing emergency funding to organisations that are under significant pressure, including ASSIST.
ASSIST workers, who support domestic abuse victims, face proposed salary cuts of around £11,500 in some cases. Such cuts threaten the stability of the workforce. Given the Scottish Government’s renewed focus on violence against women, does the minister not agree that, if the Government held broader discussions with the 13 local authorities that benefit from the service to ensure that the cuts did not proceed as planned, it could mean that vulnerable women would continue to receive the support that they need as they go through distressing court processes against their abusers?
I recognise the impact that the proposed changes will have. I appreciate the advocacy that Patricia Gibson has put on the record, and I stress the importance that we place on programmes such as ASSIST. My officials have met representatives of ASSIST to discuss the support that is available for the delivery of its vital service, and I reiterate that it is the responsibility of locally elected representatives to make the decisions that affect local service delivery and to manage the total financial resources that are available to them. Of course, however, we expect the service to deliver the outcomes that were agreed in the conditions for grant funding as awarded by the Scottish Government. As Patricia Gibson will be aware, that includes its being subject to fair work first conditionality.
Trade unions in Glasgow are rightly rising up against the proposal that will go to the integration joint board tomorrow, which threatens to gut welfare rights and anti-poverty services by cutting the workforce by more than half to plug a deficit that has been driven by years of disproportionate Government underfunding of Glasgow. Asking ASSIST staff and social care workers to share the burden by delivering double the service for the same wage is an unacceptable shift of austerity on to the front line. Will the cabinet secretary intervene to alleviate the disproportionate pressure on Glasgow and guarantee the funding that is needed to secure fair pay and safe workloads?
I have to correct Paul Sweeney: the driver of decisions such as this is the need to resolve Labour’s equal pay issues, which were a legacy for the Scottish National Party to clear up in Glasgow. The funding for the programmes that I have talked about is there, and it has been subject to a 5 per cent increase for this financial year. I encourage Paul Sweeney and his colleagues to engage constructively with Glasgow City Council as the Government is certainly seeking to do.
Police Officers (Mental Health Provision)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that front-line police officers are not routinely used to fill any gaps in mental health provision. (S7O-00252)
I begin by thanking police officers for their vital support for people who are experiencing distress or mental ill health and for their service in incredibly challenging circumstances. As was outlined during last week’s members’ business debate on the issue, we continue to invest in and expand Scotland’s 24/7 mental health emergency support services, including NHS 24, mental health paramedic response units and distress brief intervention.
Work continues on a whole-system approach, with Police Scotland, national health service boards and partners, to improve mental health pathways and reduce demand on officers. I recognise that more needs to be done at pace. The programme for government reinforces our prevention-first approach, through which we are investing in early intervention and community mental health support, to further reduce inappropriate demands on the police.
When we debated the issue in the chamber last Thursday, we agreed that police officers should not and must not be used to respond to all mental health-related incidents. I say that we agreed, but I have to tell the cabinet secretary that the minister who responded to the debate fell well short of recognising the enormity of the problem. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the enormity of the problem that front-line police officers are facing? Will he agree to join me and other parliamentary colleagues at a forthcoming round table with Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and representative bodies of police officers to discuss and address this very important issue?
Kirsten Oswald and I absolutely understand the challenge that is before police officers in this space. We have heard about it directly from the chief constable and from representative organisations—I have met all the bodies that Mr Kerr lists and have heard directly about the challenge that they face. We are working collaboratively across Government. The other week, I met Angela Constance and other ministers to discuss how we can move forward.
Some progress has been made, albeit that we need consistency in the approach across all areas and to ensure that the capacity is there for police officers to intervene when they need to and for other services to pick up otherwise. There are circumstances that I am sure—
Thanks, cabinet secretary.
Mental health response cars were piloted in Fife in 2024-25. The service was funded by Fife Council and resulted in a significant reduction in police time spent in accident and emergency at the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy. Will the Scottish Government outline when we can expect those mental health triage services to be available across Fife?
The services that Joe Long referred to are currently available in Glasgow, Dundee and Inverness, as well as in some other areas, and we are currently assessing that work. Our programme for government set out our intention to expand the scheme to every region of Scotland, and an evaluation of the current service is due this autumn. Once that is complete, we will work at pace with the Scottish Ambulance Service, national health service boards and Police Scotland to consider the findings and develop options for future expansion.
Public Service Reform (Community Councils)
To ask the Scottish Government what role community councils play in the national dialogue around public service reform, in light of the number of democratically elected volunteers across Scotland that give up their time to serve on them. (S7O-00253)
I acknowledge the critical work that is being carried out by community councillors across the country to support our local democracy and public service delivery. We have set out our commitment to a period of intensive engagement to design the future of local governance in Scotland. Conversations will take place with the public across the wider public sector, the third sector and community partners, and I anticipate that many community councillors will have a valuable contribution to add to those discussions.
Community councillors often feel frustrated that the powers that are required to make change at a local level are not always available. At times, development trusts are formed because they are considered to have more power, including in holding assets, leading community asset transfers and developing local police plans. How can we ensure that community empowerment remains at the forefront of discussions on public sector reform and the future of local governance in Scotland?
I reassure the member that community empowerment is at the core of the discussions that we are having about the future of local governance in Scotland. Indeed, there will be a debate in the Parliament, in a few days, specifically on how we can ensure that citizens feel empowered as part of their communities and that those communities are empowered to deliver what is important to the members of their communities. I would be happy to engage separately with the member to discuss how we can help to make that work in her local area.
Community councils across Sutherland suspended their annual general meetings this summer because of concerns about legal liability and insurance cover following the Ardgay judicial review. Too many community councillors are now worried about staying in post, with one describing the crisis as
“an existential threat to local grassroots democracy”.
Will the Government therefore support Highland Council in addressing the uncertainty that surrounds the enforcement of the code of conduct? Will the cabinet secretary also commit to examining the case for giving community councillors the same legal protection and financial indemnity as elected local councillors?
If David Green provides more information, I would be happy to look into that matter more extensively in order to ensure that community councillors are able to do the important job that they do without having the concerns that he has raised.
NHS IVF Access Criteria (LGBTQ+ Families)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will include the experiences of LGBTQ+ families in its review of national health service in vitro fertilisation access criteria, in order to meet the review’s aims of broadening eligibility, improving access to fertility preservation and reducing waiting times. (S7O-00254)
Those experiences are an important reason why we committed to doing a review. I am aware of the experiences that have been shared with me by LGBTQ+ families who have faced long waits to get treatment due to the availability of donor eggs and sperm. There is clear variation across Scotland, which is why the review will look specifically at patient experience on the issue.
We have asked the national fertility group to lead the NHS IVF access criteria review, and the group will make costed and demand-modelled recommendations to ministers on the next steps. The reduction of waiting times for those who require donor gametes will also be included. The review of NHS fertility preservation guidance will also be taken forward separately by the national fertility group.
My constituents Rochelle and Charlie will be fantastic parents, but the criteria for accessing IVF have put huge barriers in their way. Their chosen sperm donor, who will be present in the family member’s life, is being precluded due to his diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, taking pre-exposure prophylaxis and his relationship status. Does the minister agree that none of those characteristics have anything to do with parent suitability, and does she share my concern that the IVF care protocols may be exposing LGBTQ+ families to discrimination?
I recognise that there are clinical criteria for all couples who are accessing IVF. I will certainly take on board the comments that Holly Bruce has made, and I will go back and look at whether clinical criteria are being applied to people who wish to donate gametes that might be precluding them from donating. I will take that on board and will go back and discuss the matter with officials.
Railway Stations
To ask the Scottish Government what criteria it uses when assessing proposals for new railway stations. (S7O-00255)
Rail proposals are considered by Transport Scotland on the basis of robust business cases that are developed in line with Scottish transport appraisal guidance and Transport Scotland’s guidance on the development of business cases, as well as other Scottish Government priorities, such as our rail investment strategy, and affordability. The Scottish Government remains committed to enhancing Scotland’s rail network, as demonstrated through the delivery of the Levenmouth rail link and the upcoming opening of the Balgray station in East Renfrewshire later this month. Those are both examples of where a robust case has been demonstrated.
The minister should know that the proposals for Cove and Newtonhill stations meet all the criteria that have been used in recent projects around Scotland. Given that they have not been signed off yet, which of the criteria that the minister has just listed do the proposals for Cove and Newtonhill stations fail to meet?
I know that the member is apprised of those issues, because I wrote back to him on the matter earlier in the summer. He will appreciate that the scoping of the strategic business case is ongoing, with support from officials. He will also appreciate that any future decisions on whether to proceed with proposals will be subject to the strength and robustness of the evidence that is presented through that process, as well as wider Scottish Government priorities. I will endeavour to keep the member up to date as the matter progresses.
Railfuture Scotland anticipates minimum annual usage of more than 700,000 journeys at potential new stations across South Scotland including at Beattock, Cumnock, Mauchline, Hurlford, Symington, Thornhill, Eastriggs and Dunragit. What specific criteria will be used to prioritise rail infrastructure investment in rural regions such as South Scotland, where total use might be lower but car kilometres saved would be significantly higher than in urban areas?
I will not repeat the points that I made in my answer to Mr Kerr. A range of measures are involved in determining the suitability of any further investment. As well as what is set out in STAG and in Transport Scotland’s guidance on the development of business cases, we have to take into account wider Government priorities and affordability. In doing so, however, we must recognise the differential impact that investment can have in rural and urban areas.
Is the minister aware of the excellent work that is done by my constituents in the Beattock Station Action Group? Will he agree to come to my constituency to meet them and see at first hand how transformative a new station at Beattock could be, not just for the community but for the whole of Dumfriesshire?
I recognise the member’s interest in that issue. I believe that we had an exchange on it previously. I am more than happy to ensure that his request for a visit from the transport secretary is passed on to him.
Do the minister and the Scottish Government support in principle the extension of the Borders railway to Hawick and then on to Carlisle to join up with the west coast main line?
I am conscious of the work that is being done on rail improvements as part of the Borderlands growth deal. We recognise the significant improvements to connectivity that can be achieved. As I touched on in my answer to Mr Kerr, we have seen significant investment in the rail network during this Administration’s tenure in office. We are committed to continuing to work constructively with communities, but we have to balance those priorities against the investment criteria and the Government’s wider priorities.
Kidney Disease (Approval of Sparsentan and Kinpeygo)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it took a year longer for sparsentan and Kinpeygo to be approved for use by NHS Scotland in the treatment of kidney disease than it did for them to be approved for use in England. (S7O-00256)
I declare an interest as an employee of the national health service.
The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are separate health technology assessment bodies that use different appraisal processes, methodologies and timetables. As a result, medicines may be assessed at different times across the United Kingdom. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies determine when to submit medicines for assessment.
In the case of sparsentan, I understand that the company submitted evidence to NICE in September 2024, but did not submit evidence to the SMC until June 2025. The different submission dates, alongside separate appraisal processes, contributed to the different decision timetables.
I thank the minister for the detailed answer. She will be aware that the delay forced Scottish patients to wait significantly longer than those in England, causing needless suffering and further complications with their condition, including the potential need for a transplant. Does she agree that it is yet another example of an unnecessary duplication of services by the Scottish Medicines Consortium? Will she acknowledge that the delay demonstrates how Scottish patients are losing out on the potential union dividend of a single, efficient regulatory system?
I appreciate that, for everybody who is waiting for a particular medicine to be approved, any wait can feel too long. However, if the member is arguing for the SMC to be abolished, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him.
I recognise that we have a strong and efficient route in Scotland for licensed medicines to be appraised through the Scottish Medicines Consortium. Can the minister speak more about how the process works and how medication approval rates can differ throughout devolved nations as a result?
The regulation for the licensing, safety and efficacy of medicines is reserved to the UK Government and is the responsibility of the UK-wide Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Following the UK-wide reserved medicines licensing process, health technology assessment decisions made in the UK are devolved. In Scotland, HTA decisions are made by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and, in England, they are made by NICE. NICE and the SMC are independent organisations with distinct HTA arrangements, evidence requirements, and timetables. Therefore, it is not unusual for decisions to be reached at different times across the UK, which can sometimes benefit patients in Scotland.
Short-term Lets (Edinburgh Central)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to change the legislation governing short-term lets to ensure that properties operating as short-term lets in Edinburgh Central cannot do so without planning permission. (S7O-00257)
Under existing planning law, planning permission is required for any material change of use to short-term letting. Operating without planning permission, where required, is a breach of planning control. Planning authorities can already take enforcement action.
As I understand it, the licensing process requires the applicant to have only applied for planning permission, not to have obtained it, so they can withdraw their application for planning as soon as the licence is granted and go on to operate a STL without planning permission. Some STL landlords are using the system to try to get around the City of Edinburgh Council’s efforts to regulate short-term lets and put residents first. Will the Scottish Government change the legislation to close the loophole and require that planning permission is obtained before a licence is granted, or will it allow for a licence to be revoked if planning permission is denied?
Under existing licensing legislation, authorities may already refuse to consider a new licensing application if they believe that there has been a breach of planning control. Planning authorities at local authority level have powers under section 39 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to decline to determine any repeat application where similar applications have been previously refused, in order to try to close the loophole.
I welcome the steps that the Scottish Government has taken in recent years to make the guidance on short-term lets clearer. Will the minister tell us more about how the licensing scheme provides appropriate regulation and ensures that short-term lets meet consistent safety standards?
Scotland can already take pride in assuring guests that short-term let accommodation across the country meets consistent safety standards. That includes the suitability of hosts, which is very important when people stay overnight somewhere. The mandatory conditions also include requirements relating to fire, electricity, water, and gas safety and are applicable whether a person lets a spare room to a guest within their own home or whether they let a completely separate property.
Public Service Reform (Plans)
To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish further detail on its plan to reform public services. (S7O-00258)
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a sitting councillor in Aberdeenshire.
Public service reform is central to delivering the Government’s ambitions for Scotland.
Following the publication of Scotland’s first public service reform strategy last year, the programme for government that was published earlier this month reaffirmed our commitment to reform and set out the next phase of our approach. Yesterday, we published further details on our thinking around the reorganisation of Scottish local government.
We are now taking forward an extensive programme of engagement with partners across local government, public bodies, health and social care, the third sector, trade unions and others to help to shape delivery. That includes a public service reform summit later this month. We will, of course, continue to provide further details as that engagement process progresses and proposals are developed.
On Thursday, Aberdeenshire councillors will sit down to a report prepared by Scottish Government officials that calls for genuine multiyear settlements, reduced ring fencing, greater local flexibility and stronger alignment between funding and outcomes. Will the cabinet secretary explain why any of those sensible reforms could not have been delivered for the north-east and Aberdeenshire without potentially further centralising power away from our local authorities?
The proposals that we have put forward in draft at this stage for further development are not about centralisation. It is quite the opposite—they are about strengthening the community layer of local government through our focus on community empowerment and ensuring that citizens in those communities have a genuine say in how public services are shaped and delivered. Alongside that, we absolutely recognise the importance of a strategic layer of regional local government being able to deal with issues and challenges that are best addressed at that level.
The United Kingdom Labour Government’s shambolic and politically cynical approach to local government reform should be a lesson for the Scottish Government when it attempts to take on the same challenge over the next five years. Can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government will do the right thing and consult all stakeholders and parties in its local government consultations, and lift its petty bans against those whom it does not like or agree with?
It is clear that we are taking forward an extensive engagement process at the moment. We started that a few weeks ago, and it will continue, for a three-month period, to engage with everyone who has an input to make to those discussions.
The Government has said that national health service reform will deliver savings. How much money does it expect to save from cutting health boards? Can the cabinet secretary confirm that those savings will be additional to the savings that are already expected from NHS boards, rather than simply a relabelling of existing savings? Crucially, will the money that is saved be reinvested directly into front-line services to improve patient outcomes and the wellbeing of staff?
To be clear, the primary driver for the reorganisation that we are taking forward in health, local government and elsewhere across the public body landscape is the will to improve service delivery, so that those services are more integrated, joined up and focused on the issues that matter to the citizens of Scotland. We expect that savings through delivering services more efficiently will be a consequence of that. We have been clear that the purpose of the reforms, from a fiscal perspective, is to free up resources so that the resource levels in front-line service delivery can be increased.
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of Renfrewshire Council.
Following the publication of the proposal for the reform of local governance, will the cabinet secretary outline how those reforms are anticipated to improve the efficiency of local governance and empower communities? Further to some of the comments that have been made in the Parliament today, can he offer assurances that the views of those who are affected will continue to be heard throughout the whole process?
The views of those affected are critical and central to the process. They will be heard through our engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with local government more widely, with the third sector and trade unions, and, importantly, with any members who want to come forward and talk about their thoughts on their local community and with members of communities who want to do likewise. Engagement with the public, communities and everyone else who has an interest in that agenda is a critical part of the process.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Yesterday the Government announced a proposed significant change to Scotland’s local government. Under rule 13.2 of standing orders, on ministerial statements, should that announcement not have been made to the Parliament in a ministerial statement, so that we, as members, might have had the opportunity to ask ministers the many questions that we all have about the announcement?
It is for the Government and the Parliamentary Bureau to request statements. There was no requirement to do that in such a circumstance.
Previous
Time for Reflection