Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no.

I acknowledge that we all share a common goal: to manage our marine environment in a way that is responsible, non-polluting and forward looking. The aquaculture sector is an important part of Scotland’s economy, particularly in rural and coastal communities, and I support its development—but only when that is evidence led and environmentally sound.

I have serious reservations about approving this SSI today. Although I understand that the intention behind it is to clarify consenting powers, we cannot ignore its wider implications. This is a significant geographical and regulatory shift that risks getting ahead of the science and the processes that we need to support it, and it raises more questions than answers.

The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was clear that any relocation of farms to more exposed or offshore locations must be based on a full understanding of environmental, animal welfare and social impacts. Concerns were raised about stronger tidal conditions, colder waters and more extreme weather, all of which could harm fish welfare and increase the risk of escapes. The committee called on the Scottish Government to commission new research and consider the development of dedicated research pens before taking such a step. I believe that the SSI moves ahead of any of the evidence on that. That is why I called for a pause to allow proper research, strategic planning and safeguards to catch up before further expansion proceeds.

To ask the Scottish Government what funding allocations it has made, and plans to make, to enable local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties to uphold the statutory right of access to outdoor spaces, commonly known as the right to roam. (S6O-04776)

The sad truth is that, although Scotland’s legal right to roam is world renowned, the system for upholding such rights has never been in a worse state. A big reason for that is the way that money is allocated to local government. The number of council access officers has halved in the past 20 years, and many local authorities are failing to do even some of the most basic things, such as host a local access forum. The result is that public complaints are going unanswered, and people who want to enjoy the great outdoors are finding that their rights on paper mean little on the ground.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in order to reverse that neglect, there needs to be reform of how access funding is allocated to local authorities?

I agree with Jamie Halcro Johnston on the issues that he has raised.

The welfare of farm fish in offshore conditions is still largely unknown. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others have highlighted, we do not yet understand how strong currents, wave heights or offshore husbandry practices affect fish health. That is not a minor detail; it goes to the heart of responsible aquaculture.

We also face a clear gap in regulatory oversight. Licences under the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s controlled activities regulations currently do not extend beyond 3 miles, which means that environmental monitoring of discharges and pollution risks falling through the cracks. That is not acceptable in relation to the marine environment, and it is not acceptable to communities that are being asked to trust the process.

Local authorities, too, are being asked to carry responsibilities that they are not yet resourced or equipped to deliver. Planning for offshore sites that are more complex, more technical and more interconnected with national priorities should not fall solely to overstretched councils. Even industry experts have acknowledged that that is a broader capacity issue. All of this comes in the same week as the United Nations ocean conference in Nice and the release of the film “Ocean”, which reminds us of the global urgency to work with—not against—our seas.

I am not arguing against offshore aquaculture in principle; I am calling for a more joined-up, evidence-based and strategic approach that brings national oversight, robust science and proper resourcing together.

I would love to hear from the minister whether her Government remains committed to the allocation of 10 per cent of NHS spending to mental health services and 1 per cent specifically to CAMHS by the end of the current parliamentary session. In addition, given the constructive nature of today’s debate, it would be good to get a sense of the timeline for the cross-party summit that is mentioned in the Government’s amendment.

I, too, thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward this important debate, and I express my gratitude to staff across health, education and the third sector who work with dedication to support people with neurodevelopmental conditions. There is little doubt that, across Scotland, there is a fundamental gap in how we identify, assess and support those with neurodevelopmental conditions, particularly autism and ADHD, which is causing real harm. Constituents have contacted me and my colleagues, seeking support and direction. We have heard from Alex Cole-Hamilton that that is the case for him, too.

There is a lot to cover in this debate and, although I will try not to repeat what others have said, I wish to highlight a few key points that are essential. Demand for assessments is rising, and existing systems are unable to cope. The result is years-long waits for diagnosis. Without a diagnosis, many cannot access the basic support that they need to participate fully and confidently in education, work and community life. Long waits and unclear pathways are standing in the way of effective treatment. That is particularly true for ADHD, for which treatment can be highly effective and truly transformative.

I hope that this debate can serve as the starting point for a constructive conversation about what needs to change. We need clear action and strong commitments from the Scottish Government to begin fixing a system that is currently failing too many people. I welcome the call for the Government to convene a cross-party summit that would focus on reducing waits for neurodevelopmental support and increasing mental health capacity. That is an important first step in initiating the conversation. I hope that the minister will commit to ensuring that people with lived experience are not only heard but play a central role in shaping solutions and decisions going forward.

Another critical issue is the lack of accurate data. We do not know how many people are waiting for assessment or how long they have to wait. Without transformation in that area, we cannot accurately measure progress.

Significant action can and should be taken to address those issues. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland calls for strong national leadership and a clear focus on delivering support across four key levels of care. It has devised a model with practical solutions to many of the immediate and medium-term challenges, and it is clear that that must be paired with a long-term strategy.

We need to move away from a single-condition model. Many people experience multiple overlapping challenges. For example, a person with autism may have not just autism but several other conditions. We need integrated neurodevelopmental pathways in all 14 health board areas and to replace siloed systems with co-ordinated whole-person approaches. The national autism implementation team’s “Adult Neurodevelopmental Pathways” report makes that clear. It calls for consistent national standards, early access to support and proper accountability.

We need to stop treating neurodevelopmental support as an optional extra. National leadership is essential, as is long-term investment. Third sector organisations have long echoed that. Promising work is under way. The proposals for new care models and the inclusion of neurodevelopmental conditions in the mental health and wellbeing strategy are all steps forward.

The NAIT report gives us a direction, but efforts should be stepped up. So far, the pace has been too slow. Community-based models show promise but, at present, many people still access GPs or secondary care referrals. Monitoring and on-going support in the community are patchy and inconsistent.

This is the moment to be ambitious. The Scottish Government needs to expand and create adult neurodevelopmental pathways and stepped care models. They have been recommended by the NAIT and by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the 2021 “National clinical ADHD Pathway Feasibility Study”. That has to be backed by leadership, funding and accountability. We must start the conversation to build a system that works for everyone, and we must back it up with urgent action.

The debate has certainly brought to light our urgent need to strengthen the way in which we support people with neurodevelopmental conditions across Scotland. I thank colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. It is good to see widespread recognition of the challenge, its scale and the opportunity that we have to improve provision.

Willie Rennie pointed out that a medicalised route is not necessarily needed for everyone, and nor is it best in some cases. We just heard from Christine Grahame about the need for early intervention at school or nursery, whereby, if we provide appropriate and tailored support, we may not need medical interventions. Elena Whitham and others raised the challenge of constituents’ families being pushed around the system, having had an indication from a GP of a potential diagnosis but being unable to get one, as well as the need to ensure that local areas are properly resourced. Willie Rennie and Annie Wells spoke about young people having to wait for so long that they will no longer be children. Claire Baker spoke about the third sector community groups in her constituency that offer incredible support to families but said that such support should be delivered through the NHS.

There are key actions. There is no doubt that the current system is under serious strain. Families and individuals are waiting for far too long for assessment, treatment and support. Rightly, the motion

“calls on the Scottish Government to work urgently with NHS boards and local authorities”

to improve

“shared care arrangements”.

The recommendations from the NAIT and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are clear: we need dedicated adult neurodevelopmental pathways and stepped care models. The on-going scoping work on demand and capacity and the use of local neurodevelopmental data are essential, but data collection must not delay decisive action. We cannot afford to wait while individuals and families remain in limbo.

I express sincere thanks to NHS staff, local authority teams and third sector organisations that continue to provide vital neurodevelopmental and mental health services. They fulfil their roles often under immense pressure. I hope that the debate can be the beginning of a focused and sustained effort to listen to those with lived experience, learn from evidence and urgently deliver the real change that is needed.

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Before I begin, I apologise to Elena Whitham and other members for missing the beginning of her speech. It has been a long day—I was in the chair at 8 o’clock this morning, dealing with stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. However, I would not have missed this debate for anything. I am absolutely delighted to speak in support of the motion and the recognition of the work of the Common Ground Forum through the nature of Scotland award for innovation.

The debate is an important and timely acknowledgement of a quiet but transformative piece of work that has begun to shift the tone and approach in Scotland’s upland deer management sector. By bringing together deer managers, conservationists and rural landowners, the forum has created space for trust, dialogue and shared purpose in one of the most sensitive and contested areas of land use—deer management.

Deer management is not a marginal issue. Effective, ecological and sound deer management is central to our ambitions for nature restoration and climate action. As the Scottish Fiscal Commission has outlined, if we are to meet our climate targets, Scotland will need to spend around £11.5 billion in public investment up to 2050 on land use, land use change and forestry. That is significantly more per capita than in the rest of the United Kingdom, because we have peatland to restore, forests to plant and more land under active management. That means changing how we work on the land and doing so in a way that supports those who live and work there.

Just as we invest in roads and bridges to connect communities, we must invest in the soft infrastructure of trust. We need forums such as the Common Ground Forum to bring people together to share knowledge, build understanding and co-operate on solutions to shared challenges.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a meeting of the Common Ground Forum. About 80 stalkers, conservationists, estate workers and contractors came together to speak openly about the need to evolve practices. Many of them work alone, yet the forum creates space for them to exchange information, debunk misinformation and get up to speed with new techniques and technology. They came together under the common ground accord, which sets a standard for respectful behaviour throughout the upland deer management sector, and encourages participants to keep an open mind, listen to understand, engage honestly and work towards mutually beneficial solutions.

Although upland deer managers benefit from deer management groups, lowland areas, as we have already heard, often lack that structure. We must do more to support lowland stalkers through local forums, regional co-ordination and tailored support.

We must also recognise that managing deer for ecological recovery, if we are serious about restoring our degraded natural systems and meeting the target of protecting 30 per cent of Scotland’s land for nature by 2030, will require more trained stalkers, not fewer. That means investing in skilled development and providing structured training routes into the sector.

I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that wild deer, which are currently overabundant on our hills, are treated as a viable and sustainable source of protein. Aligning deer management with the aims of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 offers the opportunity to put healthy, locally sourced venison on the menu in Scotland’s schools, hospitals and other public kitchens. We have already heard this evening from two members about the incredible efforts on Jura and in the primary schools in Argyll and Bute.

I commend the Centre for Good Relations for the key role that it has played in facilitating the forum’s work and emphasise my belief that that kind of collaborative approach should be core to how the Scottish Government funds rural development. I have had numerous conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands about the need to fund soft infrastructure work. I trust that the debate today demonstrates to her and the minister the need to act on that.

The debate is about building a nature-positive future that allows rural people to continue to make a living using their skills and knowledge while healing the land that we all depend on. Let us support the forum’s approach and expand it to other sectors that work with Scotland’s land and sea.