Chamber and committees

In 2018, the Scottish Government published a report on the contribution of EU workers in the social care workforce, and that process was repeated for comparison in 2022. In 2018, 37.9 per cent of care home provider respondents reported experiencing difficulty in recruiting staff. That figure increased to 75 per cent in the 2022 report. Compounding those difficulties, in 2022, respondents across all services reported a drop in the number of applications from EU nationals. Although it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from other pressures on the social care labour market, the 2022 report found that Brexit is among the factors that are resulting in the sector having less flexibility to respond to on-going labour supply challenges.

Gordon MacDonald is correct that the UK Labour Government’s plans to end international recruitment of care workers will have a profoundly negative and potentially catastrophic impact on the social care sector. We have tried to engage with the UK Government by providing clear evidence-based proposals outlining workable adjustments that would better support Scotland’s labour market without compromising the UK Government’s broader objectives. However, Labour’s immigration white paper shows no substantive recognition of the policy proposals that the Scottish Government submitted.

I recognise the seriousness of the issues that Mr Rennie raises, and I want to assure him that, although I have been in post fewer than 24 hours, I have already been actively engaging with my officials to take those matters forward.

We have seen an increase in spending on front-line mental health services—that much I have already referred to in my original answers. However, I recognise and appreciate that there is variation between boards, which will, ultimately, be part of any complex system that we are dealing with.

As I set out in my original answer to Rhoda Grant, I am committed to meeting all boards over the course of the summer, because I want to ensure that, collectively across Scotland, we are all working to meet those spending targets by the end of the parliamentary session.

I recognise the seriousness of the issues that Mr Rennie raises, and I want to assure him that, although I have been in post fewer than 24 hours, I have already been actively engaging with my officials to take those matters forward.

We have seen an increase in spending on front-line mental health services—that much I have already referred to in my original answers. However, I recognise and appreciate that there is variation between boards, which will, ultimately, be part of any complex system that we are dealing with.

As I set out in my original answer to Rhoda Grant, I am committed to meeting all boards over the course of the summer, because I want to ensure that, collectively across Scotland, we are all working to meet those spending targets by the end of the parliamentary session.

I would want to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made on CAMHS waiting times this year, which members will be aware of.

I am aware of the specific points in relation to NHS Highland and have been discussing the matter actively. My officials have been engaged on the matter. I confirm to Rhoda Grant that I will meet NHS Highland in the near future, as well as all the other territorial health boards, because I want to work constructively and in partnership to ensure that all our health boards meet those spending targets.

We continue to work with national health service boards and integration joint boards towards delivery of the commitment that at least 10 per cent of front-line health spending will be dedicated to mental health by the end of this parliamentary session. The latest available cost book data confirmed that NHS expenditure on mental health has increased by £179.6 million to £1.486 billion in 2023-24. That is 9.03 per cent of total net expenditure, up from 8.53 per cent in 2022-23.

Although we remain committed to the delivery of the target, as we all know, there are continued and unprecedented challenges to public finances. Despite those pressures, since 2006, mental health spending across the NHS has doubled in cash terms, from £651 million in 2006-07 to more than £1.49 billion in 2023-24.

As I set out in my initial response, since 2006, mental health spending by NHS Scotland has more than doubled in cash terms. The most recent figures show that spend was £1.486 billion in 2023-24.

Mental health is an absolute priority for this Government. Even in the context of the past few difficult financial years, we have continued to invest wisely. That is evidenced by statistics that show that we have the best national performance ever recorded for CAMHS waiting times, and that we have record numbers of staff providing more varied mental health support and services to a larger number of people than ever before.

Presiding Officer, you will appreciate the need for me to keep my remarks brief, given that the motion that we are debating relates to a live planning case and in view of the need to respect the ministerial code and to avoid prejudicing future planning decisions.

The views that have been expressed today indicate that—

I am afraid that I am restricting my comments in the debate to my prepared remarks, given that the matter concerns a live planning application.

It remains the case that all planning applications and appeals should be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area affected, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There have been significant reforms to the Scottish planning system in recent years. The statutory development plan includes the national planning framework 4 and the relevant local development plan. The primary responsibility for determining planning applications rests with the relevant local authority in the first instance.

I remind members that appeals have an important role to play in our system, too, and ministers use their powers to call in applications and appeals very sparingly. As a matter of law, all planning applications must be determined on the planning merits of the case, taking full account of all submissions that are made by parties involved in the case, including representations from members of the local community.

Once again, I recognise that members have spent a great deal of time considering the appeal and that their views are strongly held. It is, in fact, usual for the planning system to balance competing interests, and it is important that the Parliament recognises that the system is designed to deal with a wide range of views and issues in an objective manner.

Members will appreciate that, as the planning appeal remains live, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further so as not to prejudice the decision-making process and to maintain the integrity of the planning system. With that, I conclude.

I move amendment S6M-17862.1, to insert at end:

“, and that any subsequent decision on the planning application should be made in a fair and impartial way that takes into account all relevant legal requirements and maintains the integrity of the planning process.”

As required by the Scottish ministerial code, all ministers are restricted from commenting publicly on live planning applications, as doing so could potentially prejudice the final decision. Members will therefore appreciate that I am very limited in what I am able to say in the debate. However, I can confirm that the Minister for Public Finance has decided to recall the appeal, as the proposed development raises issues of national significance in view of its potential impact on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.

I am aware that, on 16 May, an independent reporter issued a notice of intention to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle, subject to 49 planning conditions and a legal agreement being reached, including the Lomond promise, with a commitment to community benefits and fair work. The reporter’s notice-of-intention letter is publicly available to view.

I have the greatest respect for the integrity of the planning system, and I am sure that members will agree that we must allow decisions to be made in a fair and transparent way. It is for the planning system to remain objective and to take into account all views on applications so that decisions are well informed.