Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Hello again. This afternoon’s first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.
Public Transport (Island Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its cross-Government co-ordination on island connectivity, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues on how to ensure that public transport meets the needs of island communities. (S6O-05693)
The Government has published its on-going and proposed investments in ferries and other public transport island connectivity in the islands connectivity plan of May 2025 and the recent national islands plan.
Since 2021, the Government has delivered the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Isle of Islay, purchased the MV Loch Frisa, chartered additional tonnage, commissioned 13 new vessels, invested in ports—including the purchase of Ardrossan harbour—and extended free travel to all young islanders. We have also retained the road equivalent tariff, which has saved passengers around £25 million annually. For example, an islander travelling monthly by car from Arran saves more than £360 annually compared with previous multijourney tickets.
A constituent of mine who lives on Arran has contacted me about the lack of joined-up, integrated provision of public transport on the island. She advises that no bus service runs to Brodick from Blackwaterfoot in time for the first ferry sailing and no bus service runs to meet islanders off the last ferry in the evening. Despite engagement with Stagecoach, CalMac Ferries and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the situation has not improved. Will the minister commit to integrated timetables and ticketing, and will he look at the specific situation on Arran?
Katy Clark has raised a very good point on integrated services, which I have raised before. It does not work if a ferry arrives in port and the passengers watch a bus drive away. Our bus services are in the private sector, so we have to manage that and deal with it. However, her point is absolutely spot on, and we should look at the issue.
Against community wishes, CalMac has reduced services to Cumbrae this summer, and it is combining an overzealous approach to health and safety with new scheduled maintenance windows. It is a textbook example of how not to bring a community with you.
Islanders have also expressed concerns about CalMac’s reticence to carry out an impact assessment under the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, even though the changes are significant. Does the minister agree that stronger guidance is needed to compel public bodies to carry out such assessments, given the Scottish Government’s commitment to genuine community involvement?
My understanding is that CalMac has continued to work closely with the community on Cumbrae to fully consider the changes and the issues that relate to loading and offloading. Kenneth Gibson has been a vigorous campaigner for his constituents, but my understanding is that CalMac’s decision is based on safety. At the moment, that is how I think that the situation will continue.
Question 2 was not lodged.
Heating Oil Costs (Agriculture Sector and Rural Industries)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding whether any of the support announced in response to the increased cost of heating oil will help the agriculture sector and other rural industries in Scotland that are dependent on that fuel. (S6O-05695)
The £10 million Scottish emergency oil heating scheme, which commences on 1 April, includes £4.6 million from the UK Government and is for households and individuals. Scottish ministers are writing to the UK Government about the significant impacts of increased costs on farmers, including the lack of regulation on kerosene and red diesel, as well as the implications for our domestic food supply and overall food security. Many of the levers to help address the issues are reserved, and the Scottish Government remains in close contact with the UK Government to monitor the situation as it unfolds in order to understand what can be done to alleviate pressures as they arise.
I hope that the UK Government responds positively. It needs to be reminded of how important our farming community is in providing high‑quality food and drink for domestic consumption and for export. Food and drink is Scotland’s top international sector and is valued at £8 billion annually.
Does the minister agree that the London-centric UK Government overlooks the contribution of our rural communities and our farming communities? As a last word in my many years in the Parliament, I will say that that is particularly the case in my constituency ofMidlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.
I thought that Christine Grahame’s last contribution was going to be yesterday, but here she is, back again and making sure that she continues to represent her constituents.
Christine Grahame is absolutely right to make the point that she has made. She is correct that London does not understand Scottish agriculture and what the food and drink sector in Scotland is delivering. We are supporting and protecting the farming sector with the powers that we have. That is in stark contrast with policies in other parts of these islands.
We continue to provide our farmers and crofters with the most generous package of support, worth more than £660 million per annum. That support is vital in underpinning food production and helping businesses to deal with a wide range of issues, from supply chain shocks to volatile commodity markets. The published rural support plan now provides the industry with certainty for the years ahead, so it should have the confidence to invest for the long term.
A number of members would like to ask supplementary questions. I will try to get them all in, but the questions will need to be brief.
I congratulate my friend and colleague Christine Grahame on her time here, and I wish her well in the future.
I agree with the minister and Christine Grahame that heating bills are doubling and that rural areas are particularly affected. Farmers are bearing the brunt of the war in the middle east, which will also have an impact on food production. Should people who could be eligible for potential funding order their fuel now, or should they hold off? What will be the eligibility criteria? Will the Scottish National Party Government shape the fund to recognise rural challenges?
I absolutely recognise the points that Rachael Hamilton has made. We do not have the details for the scheme at the moment; we will need to get more details. The uncertainty does not help anyone, so it is incumbent on everyone to try to reverse from the positions that we have got ourselves into, or been put into, to ensure that we provide stability not only to farmers but to everybody who relies on food, which is all of us.
Given the challenges that Christine Grahame outlined and the Scottish Government’s commitment to a just transition, how can the Government support investment in biofuels and anaerobic digestion to reduce reliance on heating oil and provide greener, more secure energy for rural industries such as those in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders?
We want to encourage new innovative techniques, but, as Emma Harper knows, the energy system is reserved. We need to look at how we can make ourselves far more resilient through using our own fuel in Scotland, and there are a number of ways in which we can do that.
Farmers in my constituency are deeply concerned about the rise in fuel costs and the potential rise in the cost of fertiliser, which could come soon. I am keen to make representations to the UK Government on a cross-party basis, but we need to gather the evidence first. Can the minister assure us that he is gathering all the evidence necessary to make a powerful case to the Westminster Government?
I very much welcome Willie Rennie’s intervention, because that is exactly what we need to do. The representations cannot be made on anything other than a cross-party basis. We need to work together on food resilience, which is the most vital thing that we can have in this country. I am more than happy to continue to work with anyone in the chamber who wants to help us to get to that situation.
Members will be aware that it is snowing in some parts of Scotland, so heating is incredibly important. Has the Government assessed the scale of hardship among off-grid households, including many in my Galloway and West Dumfries constituency, who do not qualify for means-tested benefits? Will the Government consider a broader scheme that reflects the circumstances of those households? When is it likely that the money will be in people’s accounts?
The scheme will be open from 1 April, but, as I said to Rachael Hamilton, some details are still to be worked out. Finlay Carson’s point is absolutely valid. We need to get the situation under control so that the people of Scotland have access to what we have—we have a massive fuel supply, but we still have to pay the highest prices.
Food and Drink Processing Scheme Scotland
To ask the Scottish Government how the £9 million being invested in the food and drink processing scheme Scotland will help businesses to increase productivity, improve efficiency, and invest in new equipment and technology. (S6O-05696)
As part of our £9 million capital support package for the food and drink processing sector, a new food and drink processing scheme will provide grants on a competitive basis to boost production, improve supply chain efficiency and deliver economic benefits for food and drink businesses. It will offer match-funded awards of up to £400,000 to unlock growth opportunities and strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability.
That investment bolsters the support of more than £9 million that the Government has provided to the sector this year, which includes funding to deliver the national food and drink strategy, as well as other initiatives that seek to maximise growth, enhance competitiveness across domestic and export markets, and drive further resilience and innovation.
I am pleased to hear about the Government’s plans, especially its provision of additional capital investment to help businesses to expand and attract further investment, which will ultimately ensure that the sector remains a powerhouse for Scotland’s economy, but I want to add my voice on an issue that has already been raised. What scenario planning has the Government undertaken in the light of the continued disruption in the middle east, which, frankly, could disrupt the Government’s good work, given the possible impact on exports, energy and fuel costs, which Christine Grahame mentioned, and fertiliser and agricultural input markets? If it has not undertaken such scenario planning, are discussions under way with the United Kingdom Government?
As other members have done, Michelle Thomson has raised a number of important points. We established a food security unit precisely to address the key challenges that members have identified. That unit was initially set up on the back of the work of the food sector resilience group that was established when the outbreak of war in Ukraine led to significant shortages. We in Scotland are fortunate to have close engagement with our wider food and drink sector, which means that we can engage quickly in an effort to address some of the challenges and find ways through them. We set up the food security unit in order to monitor the situation.
With regard to broader engagement, I met NFU Scotland just last week, on the back of its letter to the Prime Minister about the significant concerns and issues that it wanted to be addressed. As the agriculture minister has just highlighted in response to Willie Rennie, and as I said in my meeting with the NFUS, we want to work with the industry to address those challenges. We are seeking engagement with the UK Government on the matter, so that we can address some of the problems and get ahead of any further issues.
Direct Support Payments
To ask the Scottish Government how much it has paid to the agricultural sector in direct support payments over the course of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-05697)
The Scottish Government invested £2.416 billion in the agricultural sector in direct support payments in the five years from 2021 to 2025. Those payments were delivered via the basic payment, greening, young farmers payment, Scottish suckler beef support and Scottish upland sheep support schemes. That funding represents the most generous direct payment package in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government’s package of support is the most generous package of direct support in the UK, but can the minister reassure me that the Scottish Government remains committed to providing direct payments to farmers in the future, given that the provision of such payments appears to be ending elsewhere in the UK? How does the support that is offered to farmers in Scotland compare with the support that is offered to farmers elsewhere in the UK?
Bob Doris raises a very good point. I emphasise again that the Scottish Government cares deeply about our farmers and crofters and our natural environment. Through our rural support plan, we are delivering a balanced approach, including through continued direct payments. That is in stark contrast to the policies that have been adopted in other parts of the UK. We are committed to providing certainty for the long term. That is why we are delivering the most generous direct support package in these islands, through which we are providing more than £660 million annually. From our support for our iconic livestock sector to our continued investment in less favoured area support, it is clear that things are better here in Scotland.
The rural support plan that was published just yesterday is a huge let-down. It is not just me who is saying that—many stakeholders are, too. Importantly, the figures in the plan amount to a real-terms cut of about £250 million, which is a huge decrease in funding to our rural sector. Despite the wide calls for more funding that have been made by stakeholders and the fact that the sector is being asked to deliver so much, why has the Scottish National Party Government chosen to let down our rural sector with its funding announcement?
I am sorry, but if anyone has let down the rural sector, it is members of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The Scottish Government continues to provide direct payments. The rural support plan has been welcomed by NFU Scotland, because it provides certainty and shows that we are continuing to work with our farming community.
It was the Tories who froze the agricultural support budget, and it is the Labour Party that has Barnettised it. Any farmer who is listening to this exchange will fully understand that we are working with the sector and are continuing to make direct payments, and that Scotland is the only part of the UK where that is happening.
Any farmer listening to this would be struggling to hear what was being said. Can we have less chirping from the Conservative front bench, please?
To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that.
Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan. They are concerned that there is no specific guidance on what farmers and crofters need to plan for. Given that the top 20 per cent of claimants receive 62 per cent of direct payments, will the Government move beyond rhetoric and commit to a redistributive mechanism such as front-loading or capping payments, so that public money can serve the public good?
The first point to make is that we currently cap. On the point about front-loading and so on, we will look at a number of options. We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030.
The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen. I repeat that we are the only part of the UK that continues to provide direct support, and we have the most generous package of farming support anywhere in the UK.
Food Security and Resilience
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government assessment, “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security”, published in January 2026, what assessment it has made of Scotland’s food security and resilience. (S6O-05698)
As the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy said on 19 March, we have considered that UK Government report, which highlights that our national security is under threat from global ecosystem degradation and collapse. The Scottish Government is working to protect our communities and economy by investing in ecosystem protection and restoration and ensuring that Scotland’s food systems are secure and resilient. Work is under way on the inaugural food security statement, as required by the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which will include those environmental considerations.
I am pleased that that was a slightly more positive answer than I have had from another minister, who has simply dismissed the issue by saying that national security is a reserved matter. I am glad that it seems to be on the cabinet secretary’s agenda, because the warnings in the assessment are stark, saying that every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse and that the implications are severe.
As this is one of the cabinet secretary’s last opportunities to speak in the chamber, I thank her very warmly for her service to Scotland. I think that she will be a loss both to Parliament and to Government. However, I urge her to send a clear message to her successor in Government that the implications of the assessment for devolved responsibilities, including for our food security, need a much clearer and sharper focus if we are going to avoid the potentially catastrophic implications that the report warns us of.
I am in absolute agreement with Patrick Harvie on that point, and of course I will be leaving that message, worded in the strongest terms. However, for me, what needs to be done is more about building on the work that we have already done. As I highlighted in a previous response, we have established a food security unit to look ahead to any emerging threats and to deal with some of the big threats that we face at the moment, not least the threats that are posed by ecosystem degradation, which the report highlights.
We are undertaking important work in many areas and have already established some of the necessary foundational building blocks through the climate change plan and the nature restoration legislation. It is important that, in the next session of Parliament, those elements are delivered and built on, because we have to take action across all those areas if we want to ensure that we have food security and that we are resilient in the face of such challenges in the future.
That was an interesting question from Mr Harvie, as the Scottish Greens have spent the majority of this session of Parliament demonising our farmers and food producers.
Rather than relying on imported food, which increases our carbon emissions, how is the Scottish Government supporting local procurement avenues, including by encouraging informal co-operatives to bid for contracts?
Brian Whittle has raised that issue with me on a number of occasions, and I think that we and members across the Parliament are keen to deliver on it. The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the very first good food nation plan are key to delivering on that. They recognise that procurement is a powerful tool to lever in more support for our local producers. A number of pieces of work are already under way on various mechanisms that make it easier for local suppliers and smaller producers to access public sector contracts.
More broadly, we have always been keen to make the point that nature and climate are not working against food production. We need to deal with the climate and nature challenges that we face if we are looking to secure food production for the future and, ultimately, make our farmers and crofters and their businesses more resilient.
Question 7 was not lodged.
Community Right to Buy Review
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the community right to buy review. (S6O-05700)
The Scottish Government accepts the review and its recommendations for improvements to community rights to buy, and I am grateful to all who took the time to respond to the consultation that we undertook on it. The Government is exploring its options on legislation to take forward the recommendations. That will, of course, be a decision for the next Administration. However, where legislation is not required, we will act quickly, and work is already under way with stakeholders to make what progress we can in the meantime.
The existing processes have achieved a lot, in revitalising parts of Scotland through community right to buy mechanisms, but those processes ask a lot of the groups that put forward proposals. What are the cabinet secretary’s views on how that process can be made easier and on how genuine mistakes that are made by the council, private owners or others can be made to carry no final consequences for the process?
Presiding Officer, as this is her last portfolio question, I put on record my best wishes to my good friend Mairi Gougeon, who started with me in 2016. I wish her all the best for the future, and I know that she will be sorely missed by our national Parliament—although perhaps that is not as sore as my legs were when we went for a run during our first session. I took a long time to recover from that.
I thank Fulton MacGregor for those kind comments. Some of my favourite memories are from those early days when we came to the Parliament together and served on the Justice Committee. He did not do as badly on that run as he thought, but I am glad to hear that he suffered afterwards. [Laughter.]
On Fulton MacGregor’s substantive point and the concerns that he has raised about community right to buy, he is absolutely right. The points that he has made came through loud and clear in the consultation and have been made to me by community groups that have been through the right to buy process—that it has been difficult and cumbersome. Community right to buy, and the various other rights that have been in operation, have achieved a lot, but we are committed to improving on that by making the process less of a burden on groups that seek to use it. Recommendations include combining and simplifying the rights, reducing the burden on voting and eligibility requirements, and extending the registration period for groups. All those measures will help the process.
Ultimately, the process has to be robust. However, making it easier is a goal of the review, and I encourage members to look more broadly at the detail that is contained in that.
How will the recommendations in the community right to buy review strengthen existing mechanisms or create new support mechanisms so that more communities can take ownership of their land? Is it likely that an amending bill will be needed, next session?
I thank Mercedes Villalba for her interest in the topic. As has been highlighted in the review report, delivering on some of its recommendations would need primary legislation. Ultimately, that will be for the next Government to decide on and take forward. However, where we can take action and make progress, we want to do that quickly, which is why I have highlighted the work that we are undertaking with stakeholders. We want to make sure that the process is accessible. Ultimately, it has to be fair to the landowner and the communities that are trying to access it, so we have to strike that balance while making those improvements where we can.
I take this opportunity to wish Mercedes Villalba all the very best. I have enjoyed our work together. I say that to Rhoda Grant, too, as I missed her out in the debate earlier. Thank you for your engagement on the critical pieces of legislation on which we have worked, and I wish you all the very best for the future.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item.
Health and Social Care
The next portfolio is health and social care. I advise members that there is quite a bit of interest in asking supplementary questions, so, if I am to get them all in, they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary (Beds)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce reported bed pressures at Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary. (S6O-05701)
To support improvements in hospital capacity, last year, we published the operational improvement plan, which made available up to £220 million to reduce waiting times, improve hospital flow and minimise delayed discharges. That investment is supporting the expansion of hospital-at-home capacity to at least 2,000 beds by December this year. Yesterday’s figures show that almost 7,200 people were supported by that service between November and January.
We have invested in frailty services across Scotland, including in Dumfries and Galloway, where teams are now operating at both the royal infirmary and Galloway community hospital. Through that approach, we are supporting boards to shift the balance of care from acute to community, ensuring that more care is provided closer to home.
NHS Dumfries and Galloway is focusing on actions to reduce occupancy and improve flow by delivering additional home care capacity and ensuring early discharge planning.
The reality on the ground remains grim. In my final parliamentary contribution, I highlight the case of a constituent in her 80s who recently spent the first night of her hospital stay confused, alone and scared in a corridor. On the second night, her family was relieved to hear that she was moving to a room, only to find out that it was a temporary bed in a day unit. The woman was left with a broken doorbell in place of a buzzer and was unable to rest due to excessive noise.
I understand that our hospitals are under pressure, but does the cabinet secretary agree that we should still be able to do better for our most vulnerable patients?
I will turn to Oliver Mundell’s substantive point in a second, but, with your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Oliver Mundell. I have had many dealings with him during the past five years in my ministerial roles, and I have always found him to be a constructive champion for his constituents and a tenacious parliamentarian. I have always enjoyed working with him, and I wish him and his family all the very best for the future.
In addition, I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your colleagues who are standing down, for your service in the chair over the past five years. It is very much appreciated by the Scottish Government’s health team.
I deeply regret the case that Oliver Mundell has put on the record. From what he has said, that is a completely unacceptable situation. I have seen corridor care happening, and it is undignified, unacceptable and no way for us to proceed, which is why we are making the investments that we are making through NHS Dumfries and Galloway.
The board has been allocated almost £4.5 million of combined core unscheduled care and operational improvement funding to increase the number of hospital-at-home services and to improve patient flow-through by implementing discharge without delay and addressing adults-with-incapacity delays.
If Oliver Mundell wants to send me more details, I will be happy to look at what can be done through NHS Dumfries and Galloway in the time that I have left to do so.
Silica Air Pollution
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential public health impact of silica air pollution. (S6O-05702)
The Scottish Government has not undertaken any recent assessments of the potential public health impact of silica air pollution.
Due to the nature of their work, construction workers are most likely to be at risk of silica air pollution. Regulation of workplace health and safety is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for relevant legislation and statutory regulations.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is responsible for pollution prevention for silica sand quarries across Scotland, and it takes necessary action should quarries not comply with control regulations.
In the 14 years that I have been an MSP, I have encountered many examples of environmental injustice. Perhaps the worst case that I have come across is at Burrowine moor quarry, near Kincardine, where the community has been suffering from silica dust pollution for many years, alongside noise and light pollution.
The community’s view is that SEPA’s and the council’s regulatory responsibilities are not working. Our planning process seems blind to the health issues, and the review of mineral permissions around quarries is stuck in the 1970s.
What further work can be done between the health and planning parts of the Scottish Government to ensure that those concerns are addressed and that the planning process puts health more centrally into its considerations during the next parliamentary session?
I thank Mark Ruskell for his supplementary question, and I recognise the point that he makes about planning and health. As part of my role as the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, I am very aware of the different determinants that impact on people’s health. I am happy to take the point that Mr Ruskell raises about the Burrowine moor quarry at Culross in Fife and see what else we can do to look at that situation.
A brief question from Carol Mochan.
The prevalence of respiratory issues such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in my South Scotland region causes concern. We know about the inequalities in the most deprived communities and that those communities are disproportionately affected. Mark Ruskell’s question leads me to ask whether we should look to carry out analysis of the inequalities impact of silica air pollution on our communities.
Ms Mochan raises a fair point—one that I know she presses whenever she asks a question about inequalities in relation to public health. I should highlight the fact that planning is a local government responsibility, but I recognise that, when we are looking at the social determinants of health, many areas fit into that inequality lens.
I am content to take the issue away and look at it.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05703)
Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people. I last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde colleagues this morning when I visited the Scottish newborn screening lab at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital campus to hear about the fact that Scotland is the first nation in the United Kingdom to deliver a new spinal muscular atrophy test for babies.
I am sure that Mr Bibby will join me in welcoming that news, which is thanks to the hard work of SMA campaigners, families and, indeed, the Scottish National Party’s Bob Doris.
This year, 8,700 Scots have waited more than eight hours to be seen at accident and emergency in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area alone, and 3,141 have waited more than half a day.
I recently spoke to a constituent in Paisley who has had to pay £7,000 of his own money to get a cataract removed privately because he could not wait any longer on the national health service, and he will not be alone.
Will the minister take this opportunity in the final portfolio question time of the parliamentary session to apologise to the thousands of my constituents who have been waiting unacceptably long for treatment and are having to spend their savings to go private to get treatment?
Of course I apologise to anybody who has had to wait too long for treatment, but our NHS is undoubtedly turning a corner. We have had eight months in a row of falling waiting times, and in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, there has been a 93.3 per cent reduction in long waits of more than 52 weeks in ophthalmology alone.
Of course I apologise to that constituent who has felt the need to seek private care, but we are delivering shorter waiting times in ophthalmology and many other disciplines in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, thanks to the hard-working staff of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the investment and direction given by Government.
Members have a number of supplementary questions; they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
Scotland’s biggest health board, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has a key role to play in bringing down long waits locally and nationally. Will the cabinet secretary therefore outline the progress that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has made across key specialties and the progress that has been made overall as a board to ensure that nobody waits longer than a year for treatment?
Clare Haughey is absolutely correct. Waiting lists in Scotland continue to fall, with waits of more than 52 weeks reducing for eight months in a row. New out-patient waits of more than 52 weeks have more than halved since July last year.
In NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, there have been reductions in new out-patient waits of more than 52 weeks by 94.3 per cent for ear, nose and throat, 93.3 per cent for ophthalmology, 90 per cent for general surgery and 90 per cent for gynaecology since July 2025. In addition, there have been reductions in its in-patient and day-case waits of more than 52 weeks for paediatric surgery by 67 per cent, general surgery by 66 per cent, plastic surgery by 57 per cent and neurosurgery by 56 per cent. That is undeniable progress, thanks to the hard work of staff and the direction and funding given by this Scottish National Party Government.
It has been a privilege to be here in the Scottish Parliament for the past five years. I came into politics to stand up for patients and our hard-working national health service staff, who do extraordinary work in the face of immense pressure, and I am proud to declare that I am a practising NHS general practitioner.
There have been multiple scandals at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to atrocious abuse at Skye House, and we have witnessed consistent, systematic failures that have let down the most vulnerable patients.
Why have managers been protected and not held to account? Is it to shield the SNP after 19 years of mismanagement and failure?
I do not think that we can—and nor should we—seek to draw a correlation between NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde officials and the SNP. I do not know the politics of the leadership of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and we should be careful to draw a distinction in that regard.
However, on both the issues that Dr Gulhane has raised, the Government has taken action to get answers for families. In the case of the public inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which is due to report, I wish Lord Brodie the space and time to be able to come forward with his independent conclusions. On Skye House, the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing gave a statement to Parliament just days ago setting out the Government’s actions and how we are seeking to respond, working with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to ensure that improvements are made.
My 10-year-old constituent, Cara, was referred to child and adolescent mental health services in Glasgow in May 2023, but in March this year, her parents were informed that she is still number 381 on a waiting list of 1,500. That is surely unacceptable. Cara suffers from acute anxiety, but—despite even her GP requesting a timeline for diagnosis—her family have still been waiting years in limbo.
What actions will the cabinet secretary take with the health board to help my constituents, such as Cara, who are trapped on CAMHS waiting lists for too long?
First, my sympathies go to Mr Sweeney’s constituent. I think that the matter that he is seeking to address is a diagnostic wait, rather than a CAMHS wait; those are two distinct matters. The CAMHS waiting times target has been met by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, although I accept that we have more work to do around the neurodevelopmental diagnostic waits, which is why we are supporting NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and partners to invest in capacity to ensure that that can be delivered.
Adult Social Care Displaced Worker Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of its recently implemented adult social care displaced worker scheme on social care services. (S6O-05704)
The scheme, which closed in January 2026, is backed by £500,000 of Scottish Government funding and helps employers to fill critical roles in adult social care via displaced international workers who are already in the United Kingdom and find themselves without sponsored employment through no fault of their own. Based on early estimates from current operational data, we anticipate that up to 200 vacancies may be filled as a result.
We continue to process eligible claims for the scheme and, once that process is complete, we will begin our evaluation of the scheme, including options to further support and strengthen the adult social care sector via displaced workers.
As we have seen for months now, the UK Labour Government is determined to lurch further to the right on immigration than even the Tories were when they were in power. That is having a hugely damaging impact on constituents such as mine, who rely on skilled workers in social care to deliver care packages and the valuable services that are provided by our care home staff.
What assessment has the minister made of the harmful impact that Labour policies are having on the social care sector in particular? Will he join me in calling for the repeal of those damaging policies by the reckless UK Labour Government?
Jackie Dunbar raises extremely important points. We all recognise that, both in Scotland and across the wider UK, there are significant systemic challenges in social care, in particular owing to demographic pressures and the cost of living crisis with which we have been contending for the past five years. That makes it very difficult to understand the rationale behind the UK Government’s approach to immigration with regard to social care and its decision on employer national insurance contributions, which we estimate is costing the sector around £84 million. That is not in the interests of social care in Scotland, and it is certainly not in the interests of social care elsewhere in the UK. I therefore urge the UK Government to think again on these matters; to recognise the invaluable contribution that overseas workers make, not just in social care but across our economy; and to act accordingly.
North Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership
To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. (S6O-05705)
In 2026-27, North Ayrshire Council will receive £403.9 million to fund local services, which equates to an extra £20.1 million or an additional 5.2 per cent compared to 2025-26. NHS Ayrshire and Arran will receive nearly £1.1 billion in baseline funding, which equates to an increased investment of £88.2 million from 2025-26. That includes a 2 per cent baseline uplift of £21 million for the board. The Scottish Government continues to engage closely with North Ayrshire HSCP and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to understand system pressures, and it is providing a range of support on matters relating to health and social care.
Demographic change and rising demand are placing ever greater strain on health and social care partnerships and the Scottish Government. From next Wednesday, North Ayrshire Council will provide only critical social care. Labour abstained in the budget to avoid making choices, sneakily blaming Scottish ministers thereafter if any portfolio fell under pressure. Social care is certainly in that category. Can the minister confirm how much of the additional funding that is available to the Scottish Government from April will be allocated to health and social care partnerships, specifically North Ayrshire?
I assure the member that all councils will receive their fair share of the currently undistributed sum of £107.5 million. We recognise that social care is under pressure. That is why we increased the allocation in the budget for social care and for local government. As I touched on earlier, notwithstanding the existing challenges that we face through the cost of living crisis, those issues are being compounded by the United Kingdom Government’s decisions on immigration and on employer national insurance contributions.
The significant cuts to social care provision that are coming into effect next month in North Ayrshire will mean that social care is restricted to critical risk as a result of a £9 million deficit. There is a similar situation in East Ayrshire, which has a £10 million deficit. Does the minister agree that those cuts are unacceptable and will cause real harm? Does he agree that, although there is clearly a wider discussion to be had about the funding that is needed for social care and how we provide it, steps need to be taken now to ensure that those cuts do not go ahead?
I recognise the concerns that the member raises. Similar concerns have been raised with me by many members about decisions that have been taken in their localities. I note, however, that statutory responsibility for those decisions sits with integration joint boards. The Parliament had a long and detailed debate about the proposition of a national care service, which would have seen a change in accountability. Ultimately, the Parliament, including the Labour Party, argued that decision making should be local, which is what prevails. Whether that continues will be a matter for the next session of the Parliament, but I note that we can make progress. We have seen an uplift in social care funding in this budget, and with the commitment for sectoral bargaining in social care, which will begin in earnest for the financial year 2027-28, we have a real opportunity to work collaboratively to increase resources for social care. However, that will be a matter not just for the next Administration but for the next session of the Parliament.
I advise the chamber that we will struggle to get in supplementaries if the questions and responses remain as long as they have been.
Stoma-friendly Toilets (National Health Service)
To ask the Scottish Government how many NHS boards have all of their accessible toilets as stoma-friendly toilets. (S6O-05706)
I thank Edward Mountain for raising this important issue. We recognise that the lack of a suitable surface to assist with changing a stoma bag can be an inconvenience as well as a source of stress. We do not hold any data centrally on the number of accessible toilets with a stoma shelf, but that data should be available from individual health boards. However, as Mr Mountain has brought the issue to my attention, I have asked officials to work with NHS Scotland to improve the provision of stoma shelves or equivalent surfaces within all NHS accessible toilets. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of those facilities in users’ lives and administers the changing places toilet fund to support the availability of toilets that support a range of needs, including those of people requiring to change a stoma bag.
I thank the minister for that, and I thank her for her work during this parliamentary session in helping me to achieve my aim. As a result of my campaign, I am pleased to report that NHS Highland has made good progress in making its accessible toilets stoma friendly. I am also pleased to report that the Parliament has made good progress, too.
Recently, I was pleased to secure a commitment from Morrisons to immediately make all its accessible toilets stoma friendly across the United Kingdom. All that it requires is a mirror, a hook, and a shelf. Marks and Spencer, Asda and Tesco have all agreed to review their policies, and Lidl has committed to making its store specification comply with Colostomy UK’s recommendations from the start of the next financial year.
I am pleased about the Government’s commitment, and I ask the minister to ensure that, if she is re-elected in the next session, she continues my drive on this issue.
If you will allow me, Presiding Officer, I would like to pay a very personal tribute to Edward Mountain for his focus and the light that he has shone on this important issue. As Mr Mountain knows, I understand from a personal perspective the importance of our getting this right. The work that Mr Mountain has done has given us all a recognition of the importance of supporting those who are living with a stoma bag, and I thank him very much for that. I appreciate the way in which we have been able to communicate on the issue—even though he does call me “the bag lady”. I appreciate that communication very much, however.
If I am privileged to be re-elected to this place, I would be very happy to continue his campaign.
We always discourage nicknames.
Accident and Emergency Departments (Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any excess deaths associated with long waiting times in A and E departments, including the action it is taking to reduce preventable mortality. (S6O-05707)
Excessively long waits are not acceptable, and we apologise to all patients who have had to wait too long to receive treatment. We have always recognised the relationship between long waits and increased risk of harm, which is why we remain committed to deliver improved A and E performance—so that everyone in urgent need of care can receive timely treatment. As Maggie Chapman will be aware, the pressures facing our A and E services are not unique to Scotland.
Our boards are responsible for investigating any incidents of harm. If an incident occurs, we expect boards to fulfil their statutory duty to be open with patients about what happened and to learn the necessary lessons to prevent it from happening again.
Earlier this week, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine published its “State of Emergency Medicine in Scotland” report, and it is pretty grim reading. The college estimates that, in 2025, 818 deaths were linked to prolonged emergency department waits—a situation that remains unchanged from 2024. In the North East Scotland region, which I have had the privilege to represent for the past five years, just over a third of patients attending the Aberdeen royal infirmary ED were admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours, which is well below the 95 per cent national health service standard—some 17.4 per cent of patients waited 12 hours or more for care.
What is the Scottish Government doing to reduce avoidable deaths as a result of long emergency department waits and to improve hospital flow? When will it adopt a whole-system approach, with responsibility shared across the entire patient pathway?
I thank Maggie Chapman for her question and for advocating on behalf of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, whose representatives I meet on a regular basis. After my most recent meeting, I instructed officials to have more in-depth dialogue with the college as to how we can ensure, using the whole-system basis that Maggie Chapman highlights, that the issues that we face with accident and emergency—which are driven not by accident and emergency but by the wider system—can be resolved at the same pace at which emergency medicine staff respond to issues.
I am conscious of the performance issues that Maggie Chapman raises regarding NHS Grampian, and that is part of the reason why the board is currently escalated. There is a new leadership team there, and indeed a new site director at Aberdeen royal infirmary, whom I have met. I am heartened not just by the grip and control that I see from the new leadership team, at both a site level and a board level, but by the whole-system collaboration that I want and need to see, in both city and shire, so that the issues that are driving the problems faced by the Scottish Ambulance Service may be resolved.
We can have a couple of very brief supplementaries, with brief responses.
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates that,
“at the current rate of progress, it could take more than 200 years to reduce the number”
of Scots waiting long hours at A and E to levels seen just a decade ago. Will the Government accept that its current approach has failed and commit to a whole-system approach that also tackles the social care crisis, where there is underfunding of £500 million for this financial year and record levels of delayed discharge?
It is absolutely not this Government’s intention to take anywhere near that long to resolve some of the challenges that are being faced in that regard. The operational improvement plan sets out very clear programmes of work, including the utilisation of hospital at home, the utilisation of health board funding to support social care services, working with frailty services and providing wider system support, which we are doing. That work is informed by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to ensure that we see the necessary progress. I am confident that the next Government will continue to make progress.
I place on record my thanks to all the hard-working NHS staff, including those in A and E. The excess deaths that are associated with long waiting times in A and E departments do not lie at their door but are the fault of the system that has been created.
With that in mind, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time for a new approach, to be agreed to by this Parliament, that includes whole-system measures, such as deploying technology and investing in prevention and social care, to make the NHS sustainable for years to come?
There are a number of points on which I am in agreement with Brian Whittle. The first is in relation to his tribute to our NHS and social care staff for the incredible work that they do. I have been fortunate enough to work with them, and to be cared for by them as an unexpected secret shopper last week. I have seen at first hand the world-class care that they provide—it is exemplary.
I also agree that we need to see change in the system. We have published three documents in order to move that forward: the operational improvement plan, which I have been speaking about, the population health framework and the service renewal framework. I have engaged with Mr Whittle on all of those. There is a rather larger consensus on some of the steps within those documents than might be portrayed in the election campaign that we are about to embark on.
NHS Grampian (Savings)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that NHS Grampian is looking to save £177 million over the next five years, what impact this will have on the board's staff and services, and, in particular, on Dr Gray's hospital. (S6O-05708)
Progress has been made by NHS Grampian since the decision to escalate it to level 4 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework on 12 May last year. NHS Grampian has strengthened leadership capacity significantly, with a new chief executive taking up post in September last year, and the recruitment of additional executive team members. NHS Grampian has established a value and sustainability programme to drive the development of annual plans, which will deliver efficiencies across all areas of the board’s work.
Changes in the workforce profile must be facilitated through established approaches, including vacancy management, turnover and redeployment, and any proposals will and must be developed in partnership with colleagues and the staff side. Safe and effective delivery across all services that the board provides and the wellbeing of staff are paramount. I have made that point clear to the Government’s assurance oversight board as well as to the leadership of NHS Grampian.
I was delighted to get the final health question of this parliamentary session. Ahead of today’s questions, I asked the people of Moray what issues I should raise. Katrina asked about attracting health professionals, and Helen raised concerns about children and young people. Zena, Fiona and others spoke about ensuring that patients can access the nearest suitable hospital rather than being forced to travel unnecessarily long distances. Many others also contacted me.
My constituents are already worried about the health service and accessing timely local care. Talks of big savings only heighten those concerns. If you are in the next Government, what guarantees can you give that, in the next session, we will finally resolve any cross-border issues between NHS boards, that we will attract new workers and that patients will get the respectful, timely care that we all want them to have?
Always speak through the chair.
I was going to say—if Mr McArthur is in the next Government, I wonder what the answers to those questions might be.
Before we contemplate the work of the next Government, I can give the assurance that that is already the case. The service renewal framework sets out very clear principles on how we take forward the service delivery change that will make our health and social care services more sustainable and will make a critical shift in the balance of care, so that more care is provided in local communities, in both community and primary care settings.
I encourage Mr Eagle to familiarise himself with the service renewal framework, because there is a lot that we would have in common when it comes to its principles of achieving a more sustainable health service.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Social Justice and Housing
Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2026 to 2031
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that it is not currently on track to meet its target to reduce child poverty to less than 10 per cent by 2031, what its response is to children’s charities stating that its child poverty plan is “timid” and does not go far enough. (S6O-05709)
The tackling child poverty delivery plan, which was published earlier this month, commits to concrete action for the year ahead. That includes helping parents to increase their earnings, with £55 million in funding for a new package of skills support and help with transport and childcare. There will also be further action to tackle the cost of living, including investing £9 million to mitigate the effect of the United Kingdom Government’s local housing allowance freeze and putting more money in the pockets of families by increasing our Scottish child payment to £40 in 2027-28 for children under the age of one. It is estimated that the actions that are in the plan will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty next year.
As this is the last time that I will speak in the Parliament, I thank all my colleagues for all the help and support that they have given me in the past five years. It was an honour to serve as an MSP.
Given that the City of Edinburgh Council housed 42 per cent of Scotland’s children who live in temporary accommodation in 2025 and given that rough sleeping has doubled in three years, what action is being taken urgently to eradicate child homelessness and poverty in Lothian and nationwide?
Between the work that is outlined in the tackling child poverty delivery plan and the work that my colleague Ms McAllan has been doing on the housing emergency, it is critical that we work together across the Government to support children in Edinburgh, the Lothians and across Scotland. That is why we have a commitment to affordable housing in the delivery plan. We have also emphasised and doubled the money to address voids and acquisitions, to ensure that we are taking action where some of the greatest pressures are, which includes Edinburgh and the Lothians.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty and its investment through the whole family support third sector delivery fund. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how the delivery model will work alongside existing local partnerships? In particular, will the Government consider ensuring that there are locally led, place-based approaches in the delivery model for the fund, such as those in Dumfries and Galloway, so that local partnerships can be supported to ensure the best possible outcomes for families?
It is important that we learn from the good practice that is happening across Scotland. Emma Harper rightly pointed to some examples in her area of how important place-based approaches are, because local communities know what is needed most. That is why there is so much emphasis placed in the action plan on whole family support. It is about giving support to families where and when they need it and delivering it in a way that is right for communities. I look forward to continuing to work with Emma Harper on how we can take that forward in the south of Scotland and elsewhere.
Adult Disability Payment (Mental and Behavioural Disorders)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any increase in case load for the adult disability payment, particularly in regard to mental and behavioural disorders. (S6O-05710)
I am proud that the Government is delivering for disabled people by continuing to invest in helping them with the cost of everyday tasks. The causes of increased demand for disability benefits were analysed in a report that was published in January by the Government’s chief social policy adviser. The report found that the main contributors of increased demand are rising ill health and the United Kingdom Government’s raising of the state pension age, which, combined with an ageing population, means that more people can get adult disability payments for longer.
I am sure that Dr Gulhane will be aware that statistics that were published by Social Security Scotland on 17 March confirm that the proportion of adult disability payment awards that relate to mental and behavioural conditions has remained stable over the past two years.
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
The adult disability payment case load is growing at an astounding rate, with 750,000 Scots expected to be in receipt of the benefit by 2030. The increase is being driven by a rising number of people claiming for mental disorders, including 60,000 people claiming for anxiety.
Recent surveys have shown that GPs simply do not have the time to appropriately assess fit notes, which undermines the entire system on which those notes rely. Will the cabinet secretary commit to introducing a robust assessment system that does not include GPs, who are under immense strain and pressure?
I am sure that, as a practising GP, Dr Gulhane is aware that fit notes are not used in relation to adult disability payment; that is an entirely different part of the social security system. The part that Social Security Scotland uses, which was built with the clients in mind, was developed with contributions from the NHS and doctors.
We will continue to consider what other changes can be made. However, I urge caution, because mixing up the reserved and devolved benefits systems does not do anyone any favours—particularly the clients who get those payments and require us to have a good knowledge of how the system works.
A constituent of mine said:
“I’ve been begging repeatedly for months for them to process my ADP claim, only to be ignored, told to contact charities or completely brushed off. We frequently go hungry due to severe financial hardship because I cannot afford to pay for essentials alongside bills, and universal credit alone is not enough to support us.”
When I contacted Social Security Scotland to raise the issue, it could not say when a decision would be made, it would not say how long applications are expected to take and it said that the case was being processed at the usual rate. That is cold comfort to my constituent. Will the cabinet secretary please commit to engaging with my office so that we can get an urgent resolution to this case?
I would be delighted to do so, but the member will have to be exceptionally quick in progressing the matter, as she will be aware that the pre-election period is coming up. I would have been delighted to take that forward at an earlier point had she raised the matter with me sooner. However, if she can get information on the case to me exceptionally quickly, I will be happy to look at it. I reassure her that we look carefully at the processing times in Social Security Scotland to ensure that we are doing everything that we can—both within the Government and within the agency—to keep those times down. As I said, I will look at the case, if at all possible, before the pre-election period starts.
I, too, am proud that the Scottish National Party Government continues to strengthen social security support and maximise incomes for our most vulnerable. The recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland on the welfare state highlights that high spending on social protection does more than just place a safety net for the economically disadvantaged; it helps economies to become more productive.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with IPPR Scotland’s assessment? Can she tell us more about how the Scottish Government will ensure that people who are eligible for adult disability payment receive the support to which they are entitled?
The Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland’s recent work on the issue is exceptionally important. During a recent visit to Glasgow to launch the anti-stigma campaign encouraging people to apply for social security and to get the money that they are entitled to, I was particularly struck by an individual who told me that the way in which people are spoken about in this chamber and in the media puts people off coming forward to apply for social security, although it is a human right. We should encourage people to go through that process and support them when they make an application. Of course, after an application is made, there should be a robust decision-making process.
The IPPR’s report made it very clear that it believes that it is a myth that a strong social security system is incompatible with economic success. I concur with its conclusions on that issue.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.
This will probably be the last time that I will have the opportunity—at least in the chamber—to thank Jeremy Balfour for the work that we have undertaken together over the years. We have disagreed on many things, but we have also agreed on a lot, particularly on social security.
I am pleased to end on a note of consensus with Mr Balfour. It is important that we recognise that ADP is there to support disabled people who are both in and out of work, to help them with the increased costs of a disability. That encourages people to work and keeps them in work. Once again, he makes a very important point in the chamber, and I thank him for doing so.
Older People’s Housing
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that older people’s housing, including sheltered housing, is prioritised in local housing planning and delivery. (S6O-05711)
Local authorities, as statutory housing authorities, are required to assess housing requirements locally and to set out how those will be met in their local housing strategies and development plans. That includes requirements for accessible, adaptable and wheelchair housing and housing that meets the needs of older people, including sheltered housing. The Scottish Government works closely with our partners in local authorities to support the development of those strategies and to ensure that identified priorities are reflected in the strategic housing investment plans. We also continue to offer flexible grants through the affordable housing supply programme for the delivery of specialist housing where that is required.
Over the past five years, in representing Banffshire and Buchan Coast, I have met many older constituents who are deeply worried about the future of such complexes. Those cases have touched my heart, and they are urgent. Those people want to stay independent and they want homes that are secure, modern and properly maintained. With demand set only to grow, does the cabinet secretary agree that sheltered housing must be treated as a priority? How will the Scottish Government ensure that local authorities such as Conservative-led Aberdeenshire Council, which is closing sheltered housing, plan for more of it, not less?
I share Karen Adam’s view on the importance of specialist housing. To be clear, I expect local authorities to ensure that the housing needs of their older population are met through the provision of high-quality and well-maintained homes. In that regard, I am pleased to advise that, just this morning, I published revised local housing strategy guidance to support local authorities in that work. The guidance makes absolutely clear our expectations in relation to older people’s housing, which includes the sheltered provision that Karen Adam has shone a light on today.
Housing for older people is a key priority that is driven by an ageing population. Does the Scottish Government recognise that prioritising the right type of housing can improve quality of life and reduce the need for public services, particularly in health and social care?
I agree with that. In my responses to Karen Adam, I was clear about local authorities’ responsibility to plan for that and the co-operation that we have with local authorities in making sure that it is delivered.
I place on the record that the Scottish Government has committed to updating “Housing for Varying Needs” within two years of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 having come through Parliament. We understand that, as we develop new housing, it has to be fit for people’s needs, now and in the future. Equally, looking at our existing stock, we have committed to reviewing the adaptations system as a whole to ensure that it continues to deliver for people who need it in our communities.
First-time Buyers
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting first-time buyers. (S6O-05712)
I have heard from many young people—and, increasingly, not so young people—in Scotland for whom the hopeful prospect of owning their own home one day is becoming ever more distant. We all know that, by the end of the month, by the time that food costs, energy costs and rent have been met, there is very little left to put away for a mortgage.
Through our rural and islands housing grant scheme, which has recently been announced, we will support first-time buyers in rural Scotland. We also have the extant low-cost initiative for first-time buyers, which is running currently. The First Minister recently confirmed that, if re-elected, we will introduce a first homes fund, offering a £10,000 equity contribution to assist first-time buyers with their deposits.
My supplementary is on those first-time buyer schemes. The Scottish National Party has tried such schemes before, but with little to no success, because they do not address the fundamental problem, which is a severe lack of building the homes that we desperately need. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those pre-election gimmicks do nothing to help first-time buyers? Does she agree that, instead, the next Government must focus on cutting red tape so that developers can build the homes that Scotland needs, while also reducing the cost of housing by abolishing land and buildings transaction tax?
Not for the first time—and probably not for the last—I completely disagree with Meghan Gallacher’s assessment. The individuals in Scotland who have benefited from our open market shared equity scheme do not consider it “inadequate”, as she has put it. I am sure that there are people throughout Scotland who consider the prospect of £10,000 support for their deposit to be very attractive.
What does not help first-time buyers—nor others throughout Scotland—is the mortgage volatility that we have experienced, which was triggered not least by Liz Truss’s disastrous budget.
Members: Oh!
Members!
Equally, the prospect of scrapping the land and buildings transaction tax or stamp duty land tax is for the birds, and I am afraid that it demonstrates that the Conservatives realise that their chances of implementing any such policies are, to put it politely, very slim.
Fulton MacGregor has a supplementary question.
I never pressed the request-to-speak button.
I beg your pardon. That was my fault.
Social Housing Waiting Lists (Kirkcaldy)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in light of reports of increasing pressure on social housing waiting lists in the Kirkcaldy constituency, including how it plans to support local authorities and housing associations to expand the availability of affordable homes in the area. (S6O-05713)
I regularly meet Fife Council, and we discuss the local housing emergency, affordable housing supply, temporary accommodation and homelessness pressures. One of the most impactful ways to reduce the pressure on waiting lists is to deliver more affordable homes. In the Kirkcaldy constituency area, 308 affordable homes have been completed in this parliamentary session, and further affordable homes are on the way.
The Government has confirmed a record sum for our affordable homes supply programme for next year and over the coming four years, and that increased funding and certainty will help to deliver the affordable homes that Scotland needs.
Given the sustained pressure on social housing waiting lists in the Kirkcaldy constituency, will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government can ensure that local authorities make full and effective use of the resources that are available to them, particularly in the light of Fife Council’s £9 million housing underspend in 2025, at a time when families in communities such as West Wemyss—who were recently served eviction notices by Torah Capital Limited—are desperate for affordable and secure homes?
At the end of my last answer, I noted the record funding that the Scottish Government is making available next year and in the coming four years for affordable homes. I do not want to see any underspends given that commitment. It is the responsibility of councils such as Fife Council to make the best and most effective use of their own housing resources, particularly when they have declared a housing emergency. I assure David Torrance that there will not be any underspend of the £39 million that the Scottish Government’s affordable homes supply programme is providing for Fife in 2025-26.
In response to the question about the tenants in West Wemyss, I assure David Torrance that I continue to be briefed on the issue by Fife Council, and I am ready and poised to provide support when it is requested.
More Homes Scotland (Affordable Housing and Homelessness)
To ask the Scottish Government whether addressing affordable housing need and tackling homelessness will be more homes Scotland’s core mission. (S6O-05714)
Increasing the supply of affordable homes is key to addressing housing need and critical to tackling homelessness. I am pleased to confirm that more homes Scotland will have a key focus on bringing speed, simplicity and scale to the delivery of more homes, including affordable homes, as quickly as possible. The agency will help to advance key Government priorities, including our child poverty ambitions, by ensuring that more children, families and individuals have the foundational opportunity in life of a safe, warm and affordable home.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am a member of Shelter Scotland’s committee.
Given that far too many children live in temporary accommodation, more homes Scotland must be integral to ending homelessness, and its creation is most welcome. To succeed, it must move quickly, which requires proper funding and a singular clarity of focus. Some voices call for the agency’s focus to be on increasing the supply in all housing tenures, but does the cabinet secretary agree that delivering more private homes does not necessarily reduce homelessness, and that the measure of the agency’s success must be more social homes being built and homelessness being reduced?
: One of the main drivers—if not the main driver—of homelessness is poverty. More homes Scotland will help to drive forward the Government’s core priorities of eradicating child poverty and growing our economy. To do that, we must focus on building more social homes and maximising investment in Scotland’s housing sector generally.
We have a very strong record in Scotland in that regard. Since 2007, the Government has delivered 141,000 affordable homes, 101,000 of which have the most affordable social rent. That leaves us with 69 per cent more affordable homes, per head of population, than there are in Wales and 45 per cent more affordable homes, per head of population, than there are in England. However, we are crystal clear that the number of such homes needs to grow, and the agency will help us in that regard.
Heating Oil Prices (Low-income Rural and Off-grid Households)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking through its fuel poverty programmes to support low-income rural and off-grid households that are unable to heat their homes due to the recent increase in heating oil prices. (S6O-05715)
Today, we have announced that the Scottish emergency heating oil scheme will be delivered by Advice Direct Scotland and will be open for applications from 1 April. The scheme will be available to users of both heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Low-income households and those at risk of self-rationing will be able to apply for support worth £300 towards their bills. That is in addition to our energy saving schemes, which already deliver average savings of £300 annually. Our islands cost crisis emergency fund will continue into the 2026-27 financial year, with an additional £1 million allocation. This year, we have also invested a further £5.5 million in the Scottish welfare fund, which provides vital support in difficult times.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome response. One of my constituents has seen their heating oil bill triple overnight, has no savings and has been told to wait until April for support that amounts to pennies per household. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the £4.6 million that has been allocated to Scotland is wholly inadequate? Will she join me in calling on the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to do far more to protect the off-grid households that Westminster’s energy price cap has left behind?
I express the Government’s sympathy with those who are wrestling with dramatically increased oil prices, which will have come as a very unwelcome shock to households. Rona Mackay is absolutely right that the £4.6 million that the United Kingdom Government has allocated is absolutely inadequate, especially when one considers how much money has gone from Scotland’s North Sea to the UK Treasury since the 1970s. However, we have acted quickly to complement the fund with £5.4 million, bringing the total funding to £10 million—with £300 being offered to eligible households, which, we think, equates to about 200 litres of heating oil—to directly support those in need. That simple process is administered through trusted partners and is open to those in need.
I call Clare Adamson, who joins us remotely.
Temporary Accommodation
Forgive me, Presiding Officer, but I hope that you will indulge me, as I wish to thank all those working across the Parliament campus to support MSPs, including the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the legal teams, and I wish all my colleagues the very best for the future. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the time that households spend in temporary accommodation. (S6O-05716)
I echo Clare Adamson’s thanks. On her question, temporary accommodation provides a vital safety net as part of our housing system in Scotland, but we, of course, want people to spend as little time as possible there.
I will run through some of the actions that we have taken recently, which underline the importance that we place on the issue. I have mentioned the record funding of £926 million that we have secured for next year, which has been coupled with record certainty. We have doubled to £80 million the voids and acquisitions funds, which help councils to buy properties or turn them back round for use. We are supporting the flipping of temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation. We have created a national fund to leave. We have expanded our housing first scheme.
We have introduced evidence-based rent controls, but we have made clear exemptions for mid-market and build-to-rent properties. We have brought Awaab’s law to the floor of the Parliament. We have passed new laws to remove perpetrators of domestic abuse from social homes. As my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville noted, we have just introduced a £9 million fund to mitigate the United Kingdom’s local housing allowance freeze, together with a new delivery agency and a promised first-home fund.
One of my most frustrating constituent issues is when people who are expecting to move into accommodation cannot do so because it is not ready on time, which can cause stress for families. Will the cabinet secretary explain how the targeted £80 million investment to support local authorities that are experiencing the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures can help to get people into permanent housing more quickly?
That fund, which goes directly to councils to help them to turn around social voids quickly and to acquire family homes on the market, is a critical part of our response to the housing emergency, because although we are putting a huge amount of work into delivering more affordable homes more quickly, it is clear that immediate action is needed. That £80 million fund, which forms part of the larger sum of £120 million that we have provided since the emergency was declared, is supporting the acquisition of at least 1,200 homes and helping between 600 and 800 children to move quickly from the vital safety net of temporary accommodation into permanent settled homes.
In the past five years of the Government’s tenure, 17,811 children have been trapped in temporary accommodation for more than a year. Whoever is elected to this Parliament next month must commit to it never being repeated that so many children have had to suffer for so long. My question is a simple one: does the cabinet secretary agree?
I would say that, although I said in response to Clare Adamson that temporary accommodation is a vital safety net for families and individuals who find themselves facing homelessness, we must reduce the length of time that people spend in temporary accommodation and make rapid rehousing in a permanent home something that is realisable for everyone. Much of what I put on the record in response to Clare Adamson—I set out a list of strong and clear interventions that the Government has made—will help us to realise that.
However, if the Scottish National Party is fortunate enough to be returned to government by the people of Scotland, we will turn our minds back to exactly that task.
That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.