Chamber and committees

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has raised that issue on a sustained basis with the United Kingdom Government. I agree with Mr Gibson’s analysis and commentary that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will deflate employment opportunities in Scotland, which I very much regret, as it will be another impediment to the agenda of delivering economic growth in Scotland.

Given the enormous external challenges that we face, the Government’s focus is to ensure that we do all that we can to support economic growth. It would assist us enormously if the UK Government changed its position on employer national insurance contribution rises.

Following development of the neurodevelopmental specification, which aims to ensure that children and families receive timely support that meets their needs, the Scottish Government has provided £1 million of funding across Highland, Fife, East Lothian, Aberdeen city and Forth Valley for projects to test and support implementation. A report on the five tests of change will be published this summer.

As Mr Mountain will know, NHS Highland was supported with funding for a time-limited test of change, which has concluded, as I said earlier. A new neurodevelopmental pathway is in development with local partners to address exactly the issues that Mr Mountain has put to me. I encourage NHS Highland to progress that work, using the £7.1 million of funding that it receives as part of the overall funding given to national health service boards by the Scottish Government to support neurodevelopmental services.

I would stress the importance of seeing a range of different interventions, some of which are assisted by the counselling services in schools that the Government has funded. We continue to provide £16 million a year to local authorities to ensure that there are counselling services in every secondary school in Scotland, and we are maintaining financial support through the mental health assistance that we have in place. All those factors are contributing to addressing the issues that Mr Mountain has put to me.

The first point that I will make in response to Mr Findlay is that we must recognise the climate emergency that we face and the necessity of adapting to that reality. I know that the Conservatives are involved in a pivot on net zero. In fact, they want to deny the climate challenges that we face.

However, the underpinning point, which is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s approach to consideration of further development in the North Sea oil and gas sector, is that any such decision must be the subject of a climate compatibility assessment. That is what the courts have now said is required to take place. The judgments that have been issued, which have led to the United Kingdom Government’s having to revisit parts of its process for determining such applications, have underlined the importance of carrying out such an assessment.

We cannot deny the realities of what we as a society face, and the Government will support industry to transition to that reality. The best thing that we can all do in this Parliament is to argue for the approval of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which the Conservatives refused to authorise when they were in office. The quicker we get Acorn approved, the better for Scotland’s climate strategy.

—and press this Government to act on those targets and then, on the instructions of the Conservative leader, desert the field when the going gets tough.

The Scottish Government’s budget, which Mr Findlay did not support, has made available financial support and assistance for the delivery of projects under the project willow umbrella, which will secure the future of the Grangemouth site. I return to my fundamental point that the quickest and best thing that can happen is approval of the carbon capture and storage project at Grangemouth. I hope that Mr Findlay will make up for the failure of the Conservative Government by supporting my call for that today.

As is well understood, there are significant challenges in our meeting the car-use reduction target, and that issue is being considered by the Government at this time.

It is important that I set out the range of other measures that the Government is taking to invest in supporting the use of public transport, which is our way out of the challenges that we face on the issue. One of those investments is the support for the concessionary travel scheme, which is now much more extensively available, since we expanded it—with the support of our colleagues in the Green Party—to under-22s. We have also invested significantly in active travel, with support sustained in the Government’s budget, which attracted support in Parliament earlier this year, to ensure that we address the necessity of changing the priorities of individuals.

The Government has examined and explored a range of different options to support the development of our policy. We will continue to do that as we work, as part of our climate agenda, to reduce car use and to increase the reliance of members of the public on public transport.

It is not the case that a diagnosis is necessary for young people to get support. It is absolutely critical that I make that point to Parliament today, because there are pathways that are available other than those involving a diagnosis for ADHD or a neurodiversity condition that enable young people to attract the support that will assist them in meeting the challenges that they face. It is vital that I convey that message at First Minister’s question time today, so that parents can be reassured that there is support available to meet the needs of individual young people.

The Government is making a range of interventions. We are expanding mental health support and supporting the development of community interventions, and we are working to ensure that young people get support at the earliest possible opportunity. A variety of pathways enable that to be the case, and ministers will continue to focus on delivering the services that young people need in our country.

Those issues and representations will be taken very seriously by the Government. We engage and support that effort through the alcohol and drug partnerships around the country; Carol Mochan will be familiar with those in the communities that she represents.

We have taken a number of measures to tackle alcohol harm in our society, and we will continue to consider what further measures we can take. I recognise that the measures that we have taken so far have not addressed all the circumstances that we face, and we must be open to some of the suggestions that are made. There is space for us, as a Parliament, to find areas of common ground to try to make progress on this agenda, because it requires long-term intervention and action—a combination of public awareness and healthcare and support services to meet individuals’ needs.

I am grateful to Mr Hoy for raising this important issue. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met some of the families who are involved in the efforts that Mr Hoy has drawn to the attention of the Parliament. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary met four health boards that are involved in providing services to children with the condition, to discuss what is needed to enable delivery of the medicine in a way that is safe but also ensures fair and equitable access at pace across the country. Very active work is under way to deliver on the expectations of Mr Hoy and his constituents. We are very sympathetic and are trying to get there as fast as possible.

The engagement that the cabinet secretary has had so far is perhaps sufficient. If there is a need for a personal meeting with me, I will of course be happy to have that, but I assure Mr Hoy that the issue is being advanced with urgency by the cabinet secretary.

I join Roz McCall in endorsing that approach and I welcome the comments that she has made to Parliament today. The central point that Roz McCall makes about early intervention and assessment is really important. Some of the fantastic work that can be done in relation to ophthalmology services is an illustration of early intervention having significant benefits.

I very much endorse the points that Roz McCall has made and I wish her and her constituents well. I am glad to hear that they are being well supported by the national health service—I would expect nothing else. If any issues arise in the course of their journey, the health secretary will be happy to assist in any way that he can.