On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order with you in relation to a matter that was raised in health questions this afternoon. I asked the minister about the cut to the mental health budget in the 2025-26 financial year. The minister said that the premise of my question was incorrect and suggested that the mental health budget had, in fact, increased. As per the Scottish Parliament information centre, which published information on the budget in real terms, £267.2 million was allocated to the mental health budget in 2024-25. In the 2025-26 draft budget, £264.2 million was allocated as a budget line. That is quite an obvious arithmetical real-terms cut of 1.1 per cent. That is published in the Parliament by SPICe.

Presiding Officer, I ask for your advice on a matter of accuracy and on the reporting of financial information to the Parliament, particularly by ministers. Will you be able to offer some guidance, written or otherwise, on how ministers should present financial information to Parliament and parliamentarians?

As deputy convener, I am pleased to close this important debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I extend sincere thanks to all my parliamentary colleagues across the chamber for their contributions this afternoon.

As the convener highlighted in her opening speech, it has long been recognised that people who live in remote and rural areas face unique challenges when it comes to accessing healthcare. I believe that the report and its subsequent findings shine a light on the reality of those challenges.

I also echo the convener’s sentiments when she spoke about all those who contributed to the inquiry, be they national health service staff, third sector organisations, patient campaign groups or those who responded to the various consultation exercises. The level of engagement throughout the inquiry has been outstanding. Without those contributions, we would not have been able to create such a comprehensive report on this complex and wide-reaching issue. I, too, thank everyone who took the time to contribute to the inquiry.

On behalf of committee members, I also extend our thanks to the clerks and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre who have done so much work to support us in recording and publishing our findings.

Equally, I am grateful to all members who contributed to today’s debate. The vast array of issues that have been raised is testament to the significance of the inquiry as well as the wide-ranging challenges that must be tackled if we are to improve the delivery of healthcare services in remote and rural areas. It goes without saying—and I hope that the recommendations in the report and the points that were raised in the chamber today will be appropriately reflected and implemented by the Government in forthcoming policy actions—that members across parties will be persistent in pursuing ministers in that regard.

Rather than cover ground that has already been touched on by colleagues in their personal constituency experiences, I will take the opportunity to reflect on the external engagement that the committee carried out as part of the inquiry—namely, the committee’s visit to the Isle of Skye. That was certainly a novel experience for me as a Glaswegian. I extend sincere thanks to all who took time out to meet me and other committee members during our visit.

The opportunity to meet staff at the Broadford medical centre was a particularly invaluable experience for the committee members. It allowed us to hear at first hand of the professional experience of delivering primary care in a rural setting as well as the unique challenges that are associated with serving patients on the island.

I was particularly struck by the conversation that we had with staff at the practice about the availability of training. One person informed us that she worked in both the medical centre and the adjacent hospital, and that that experience had been massively beneficial in helping her to further develop her clinical skills. Unfortunately, we were also informed that very little official support and few channels were available for someone who, potentially, sought to go down that route in order to develop their professional competencies—which, given the issues that surround the suitable training and retention of staff in healthcare settings, seemed particularly surprising.

I agree with those observations. They are very relevant, particularly given that medical practices on Skye serve a number of outlying islands. [Interruption.]

The member makes an astute observation about something that we talked about when we visited Broadford hospital on Skye. We were rather bemused by the derelict old hospital buildings behind the new-build hospital. There seemed to be a lack of capacity or ability to renovate those old buildings into accommodation for healthcare workers. Surely that would have made sense but, because of the lack of a span of control, there was clearly not the ability to do that. Maybe we need to reform the policy there.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that Alexander Dennis in Falkirk is one of the jewels in the crown of Scottish manufacturing, but it has cited increasingly unfair competition and subsidies from overseas manufacturers, such as those in China, as being responsible for its recent difficult decision to consult on 160 redundancies at its site in Falkirk. It has said that, of the 252 buses that are expected to be delivered through the Scottish Government zero-emission bus challenge fund, 80 per cent will likely be manufactured outside of the United Kingdom. Will the cabinet secretary agree to engage with Falkirk’s MP, Euan Stainbank, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to resolve the issue with unfair procurement practices and ensure that more buses are built in Scotland?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Brian Whittle has made an important point. For example, good broadband connectivity can allow for online consultations. Similarly, being able to assess and diagnose conditions using AI might speed up the process.

However, in the case that I mentioned, the issue is to do with contractual arrangements and ensuring that, with regards to tax arrangements, there is no conflict between a clinical contract with an acute hospital and a primary care contract with a GP practice. That probably happens because of there being a very central-belt focus in such matters, but, uniquely to the clinical setting in a rural area, it is more of an issue, and there needs to be a broader opportunity to develop skills. It might not be such an urgent matter in a major city such as Glasgow, for example. We design our services with a central belt bias in mind. That was clear to members of the committee.

I therefore reiterate the report’s calls that much greater structural support should be given to remote and rural GPs, to enable them to develop their skills and experience by facilitating greater opportunities to work simultaneously in general practice and acute hospital settings. I hope that the Government, NHS boards and professional bodies will look to collectively promote and facilitate such opportunities for rural primary care practitioners in the future.

We also had the privilege of meeting staff from Broadford hospital, where we received a tour of the newly built facility and engaged in candid discussions with available staff. Although it is clear that staff at the hospital face challenges that are unique to their geographical setting, their commitment to serving their community in the face of those challenges is inspiring. Their efforts deserve commendation, and they deserve our support to enable them to continue carrying out their crucial work. The same could be said of staff in all hospital settings in remote and rural areas.

We had candid discussions about the lack of proper consultation with clinicians resulting in design flaws in the newly built hospital. Those included the lack of a computed tomography scanner, which has resulted in hundreds of unnecessary referrals to Raigmore hospital, which is a 90-mile two-hour trip up the road. The petrol costs alone would likely pay for a CT scanner, which is one of the many absurdities that clinicians highlighted.

The member for Kirkcaldy also observed that the adjacent old hospital buildings could readily have been converted to accommodation for visiting clinicians. However, there is a lack of capacity and entrepreneurship in the health board to expedite that opportunity with the council, housing associations and so on.

We ended the evening by meeting various patient groups, individuals and stakeholders at the Skye and Lochalsh Mental Health Association to learn more about its work and the specific challenges that the organisation and its users face, as well as the wider difficulties with regard to the delivery of third sector services on the island.

What was particularly striking was people’s fear of being sent long distances, particularly for care packages. One person expressed a fear that they would be sent to a care home in Thurso, which is a 200-mile journey that takes four and a half hours by car, because that was the only available package in the board area. That is the same distance as from here to Manchester, which highlights some of the fears of people on the island about being able to finish their life on the island.

Mental health services, particularly the role that third sector organisations play in delivering those services, are often overlooked, but they remain crucial to remote and rural communities. It was disappointing to hear that, despite the invaluable work that is done by those organisations, many of the services are struggling to plan due to funding uncertainties.

Given that those organisations provide essential services, I hope that the Government will work with local decision makers to explore the opportunities to develop a revised approach to funding applications and allocation processes that could mitigate funding uncertainties. As highlighted in the report, that should include multi-annual funding allocations and improved application processes through enhanced transparency, thus reducing unnecessary administrative burdens for organisations whose capacity is already stretched thin.

I thank all the staff, stakeholders and individuals who made the visit so worth while. I hope that the report’s recommendations are adequately reflected in future healthcare policy. I look forward to scrutinising any forthcoming strategies to ensure that new measures are effective in mitigating the unique everyday challenges in the delivery of healthcare services in remote and rural settings.

I thank Mr Doris and Mr Ruskell for their early and critical support in the Parliament of the objectives of the free bus travel project. Indeed, I share his sentiments. As co-conveners of the cross-party group on migration, we have long sought to achieve that in the UK, and we would like to see progress being made to give people who are seeking asylum the right to work after an appropriate period of time, rather than the interminable limbo that so many are kept in. I agree with Mr Doris’s point. The limbo that asylum seekers are kept in is the key issue.

The cost of an all-day bus ticket in Glasgow is £5.60. People who are seeking asylum rely on a financial stipend of just £7 per day to cover the cost of living. For those who are living in accommodation that provides meals, the allowance is £1.26 per day. The adult single bus fare in Glasgow is £2.95, and a child’s single bus fare is £1.60, so their allowance does not even cover that cost alone. Those people are, at present, prohibited from getting a job or accessing most social security benefits. Therefore, they are the most deprived cohort of people in the country. Having to fork out £5.60 for bus travel to attend medical, social or legal appointments is, quite simply, not an option unless they go without food or other essentials. I and many other members have heard pretty harrowing accounts of that.

Crucially, concessionary bus travel also enables people who are seeking asylum to integrate into their new home country, discover their new place of residence and begin to restart their lives. It is a socially just policy. I have stood in the chamber several times in the past three years articulating the benefits of extending free bus travel to people who are seeking asylum. We should hear from people with lived experience of the asylum system in Britain so that the Conservative members know who they are demonising when they use their Opposition day time to create division between pensioners and asylum seekers for their political convenience.

One person who is seeking asylum in Glasgow said:

“This will allow me to meet with friends, access education, and connect with the community. It will allow me to have some form of freedom. We already live in an open prison at hotels, not able to meet friends, travel, and to overcome isolation. We only receive £8.86 per week. It will help me to live a little more of a normal life.”

Another said:

“For someone seeking asylum, a free bus pass is more than a card—it’s a chance to explore, to access help, and to feel a little less invisible.”

The scheme will do so much more than provide free transport for new members of our community who are seeking sanctuary; it will begin a process of integration so that they can feel part of their new community. We must also remember that the Conservative Government spent the atrociously wasteful sum of £700 million on the failed Rwanda scheme and its members now have the audacity to come to the chamber to talk about a commonsense budget. By my calculations, the wasted funding on the Rwanda scheme would have covered free bus travel for people seeking asylum for 350 years. That is how ludicrous and risible the Tory position has ended up being.

In contrast, free bus travel for asylum seekers costs a small sum but will have a profound impact on some of the most marginalised people in Scotland, giving them access to healthcare and other vital services. The policy would equate to a 0.2 per cent increase in the number of people in Scotland benefiting from existing free concessionary travel schemes. When we started the campaign, we coined the slogan “A small change that would make a huge difference”, and we stand by that, because it is as true today as it was in December 2021. It is a rounding error in the Scottish Government budget. The costs are negligible—according to the Government’s figures, the implementation would be around £2 million a year, which is 0.003 per cent of the budget. The notion that that is unaffordable is, simply, risible.

Crucially, we are talking about people who do not wish to be here but who have been forced to flee their home country seeking safety. Free bus travel allows them a modicum of dignity as they begin to rebuild their lives.

Emma Roddick makes a powerful point. Does she recognise that the people who genuinely profit out of the asylum system are the large private contractors, such as Serco and Mears, which often get very lucrative housing contracts from the Government?

I share the dismay and frustration expressed by members across the chamber at today’s motion, which was lodged by the Conservative Party. It is increasingly clear that the Tories are desperately in pursuit of voters on their right flank and are therefore seeking to replicate the divisive politics that we have seen play out in the Reform UK Party. Today, they have chosen to punch down on people seeking asylum in Scotland in pursuit of that pretty ignoble objective.

These are people in this country who have fled persecution, political oppression and conflict. That is the point. They are not an abstract persona, as the Tories would have us believe—they are people who desperately need our help. I know that first hand, because I represent around 90 per cent of the people who are seeking asylum in Scotland.

Since I launched the campaign to extend concessionary bus travel to asylum seekers in Scotland with the Red Cross voices network and Maryhill Integration Network three years ago this week, the campaign has enjoyed robust support across civil society and the third sector and, crucially, cross-party support in the Parliament, including from Conservative members, as has been mentioned. It is disappointing that the Tories’ new leadership has turned its back on the most vulnerable in our society, with both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland uniting to issue a statement to condemn the party’s mendacious cynicism. It is particularly pernicious as it is the middle of the season of Advent.

Around 5,000 of the approximately 5,500 people who are seeking asylum in Scotland live in Glasgow, along with the member for Maryhill and Springburn, from whom I am happy to take an intervention.

I join the minister in welcoming to the gallery retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, who is the Scottish veterans commissioner. We all agree that she does amazing work in public service of our country and the veterans community in Scotland, which, as Mr Greene mentioned, numbers 176,100 people, according to the last census. By my reckoning, that is a population that is about the equivalent of that of Scotland’s fourth-largest city, just beating Dundee. It is a significant cohort of people, half of whom are, as has been mentioned, active working-age people who are very much contributing and dynamic citizens in our country. They are, indeed, some of our best citizens, as is typified by the veterans commissioner.

It is a privilege to open for the Labour Party in the debate on the motion of support for the veterans and the armed forces community in Scotland. I was pleased, too, to sign the motion, in the spirit of consensus on its sentiments. We must all, nonetheless, collaborate to ensure that we deliver the best possible public policy environment to support our veterans community.

The transition from service life to civilian life is not an easy one for many people. There is much work to be done to make that transition smoother and to tackle many of the prevalent issues that veterans come up against. I highlight that, in many conversations that I have had with serving members of the armed forces in recent years, many expressed feeling immense pressure to terminate their careers in the armed forces prematurely due to family pressures, issues around childcare and education or spouses seeking employment opportunities that they were not otherwise able to find. That came out loud and clear in conversations with members of the Army, whether at Glencorse in Midlothian or Lossiemouth in Moray.

It is important that, in considering the on-going strategic defence review, the Scottish Government takes an all-Government approach to ensuring that the resilience of our armed forces is sustained by public policy across all tiers of government, in order to support our armed forces personnel to sustain their careers until the point at which they wish to exit service.

It has been highlighted in the early stages of the strategic defence review that we are losing too many people from our armed forces. There is a real strategic challenge in recruitment and retention. Given the on-going geopolitical situation, that is a major national security concern. We all have a responsibility to ensure total national resilience in that respect.

We also need to consider the significant cohort of working-age veterans in Scotland and how we might promote greater recruitment to the reserve forces. It is not simply about hot conflicts but about ensuring home resilience. Given the extreme weather events and other major risks that face the country, having greater depth in the armed forces in Scotland through the reserves would be welcome. Greater engagement from the Scottish Government in that respect, as part of the strategic defence review, would be welcome. I know that the Scottish Government has submitted a report with its feedback to the defence review. It would be welcome if the minister could comment on that in his closing remarks.

It continues to be the case that many veterans face trouble with accessing housing, employment and skills development when they leave the armed forces. No one should be forced to face homelessness or sleeping rough. Homelessness among the veterans community remains extremely high. The Scottish Government’s slow progress towards delivery of the veterans homelessness prevention pathway is apparent, with a total of 935 homelessness applications having been submitted by veterans last year, which is the highest figure since 2018-19. That is not good enough, and there is no doubt that the Government’s decision to slash the affordable housing budget last year will have had a particular knock-on effect on veterans. Without the fundamental security of having shelter and a roof over their heads, how are our veterans expected to adjust to their new lives in civilian environments?

Although it is welcome that priority has been given to the healthcare of veterans, the Government must not be complacent about the quality of the services that are provided—in particular, the quality and accessibility of mental health services. It was particularly disappointing to read in the detailed breakdown of the Scottish Government’s draft budget publication yesterday that there is to be a real-terms cut in mental health funding. That will certainly not be helpful.

Veterans are especially vulnerable to mental health challenges. I know that from personal experience and that of my friends. It is no surprise, given the exposure to trauma that comes with military service, often with the loss of friends at a young age, that veterans are at increased risk of developing depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. In her recent annual progress report, which was published on 18 September, the Scottish veterans commissioner warned, for a second year, about the delays in realisation of the veterans mental health and wellbeing action plan.

Glasgow’s helping heroes service, which is supported by SSAFA, the armed forces charity, is just one of many veterans organisations that are providing much-needed support for veterans by providing a one-stop shop. The minister alluded to the need for greater dissemination and promotion of the services that are available. SSAFA’s model stands up to scrutiny as one that is particularly effective, because it operates a one-stop shop that helps veterans to access all forms of practical support in housing, employment, benefits and healthcare, and it signposts them to organisations that can help them with mental health issues. The Scottish Government must prioritise veterans’ mental health, so perhaps utilising those pathways and conduits would be a helpful means of doing so.

The new UK Government has taken steps to improve the lives of veterans, such as extending national insurance relief for employers that hire veterans. I had the opportunity to meet many of them last week at BAE Systems on the Clyde, at the steel-cutting ceremony for the new type 26 frigate, HMS Sheffield. I also met there the veterans commissioner, who served on a previous HMS Sheffield, which was a type 22 frigate—in its case, one that was built on Tyneside. It was a great moment to join veterans who were working on the ship and others who had served on previous HMS Sheffields, including the type 42 frigate that was lost in May 1982, with 20 lives having been lost in that tragic incident.

The Government has also introduced a digital veterans card that will, I hope, promote greater access to Government services. I hope that that is something that the Scottish Government will look into.

I cannot help but notice that we have the same debate yearly, with almost identical contributions. If the Government is serious about supporting the armed forces and veterans community in Scotland, we must have greater time in Parliament devoted to the issues. We are eager to work on a cross-party basis, and we hope that we will not divide the chamber on the matter, but we must do more for those who have done the most in public service of our country.