Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.
Scotch Whisky
To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding how to ensure the protection of Scotch whisky. (S6O-04512)
The Scottish Government takes the protection of Scotch whisky—and all of our iconic food and drink products—seriously. I had hoped to raise the issue at the interministerial group, but the meeting was cancelled at short notice, which is disappointing. I will be taking up this important issue with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the earliest opportunity, to share our concerns and those of the industry at the proposals to redefine what is considered single malt.
The whisky sector is a vital employer, particularly in our rural and island communities, and it is a significant part of our economy, contributing £5.4 billion-worth of exports last year. We will continue to work shoulder to shoulder with the sector to address any attempts to undermine confidence in our iconic single malt whisky.
That is exactly what I want to ask about. The success and growth of Scotch whisky is a story that we are all familiar with. In 2023, Scotch whisky exports, which accounted for 74 per cent of Scottish food and drink exports and 22 per cent of all United Kingdom food and drink exports, were estimated to be worth £5.4 billion.
In my Mid Scotland and Fife region, there are many successful distilleries, including Deanston, Glengoyne, Glenturret, Tullibardine, Lindores Abbey and Kingsbarns, to name but a few. Therefore, it was extremely concerning to hear that, as the cabinet secretary has alluded to, the UK Government’s Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs is still open to the possibility of giving the green light to an application for English single malt to have protected status.
Single malt is seen as a premium product for a reason. It is handcrafted using traditional methods, utilising local raw material—
I need a question, Ms McCall.
Will the cabinet secretary commit today to pressurising the UK Government more extensively on this point to ensure the protection of Scotland’s iconic brand?
I am in full agreement with everything that Roz McCall has set out. The member mentioned a number of distilleries in her region. The economic impact and importance of our Scotch whisky industry more broadly across Scotland is clear for everyone to see, and we will continue to do everything in our power to pressure the UK Government to ensure that our iconic product is well recognised. It is unfortunate that the opportunity that we had to do that earlier this week was cancelled at short notice, but we will continue to make that point to ministers at DEFRA.
Before the Tories forced Brexit on Scotland, whisky had the protection of a European Union geographical indication. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland’s produce, such as whisky, will never be amply protected as long as Westminster Governments—whether Labour or Tory—have the power to legislate on and undermine the interests of Scottish business?
I recognise the member’s point. Following Brexit, geographical indication holders were transitioned over and then offered protection through the UK scheme, although that is less well known than the previous scheme that we were part of as members of the EU.
I agree with Gordon MacDonald on the wider point. Our whisky, salmon, beef, lamb and cheese are some of the finest products in the world, and anyone undermining the protection afforded to them by including lesser products is playing with fire. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that those iconic products are protected.
Last August, Brazil gave Scotch whisky GI status. That took 10 years to negotiate. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is deeply troubling for the United Kingdom to potentially have more than one definition of single malt, and that it would be damaging to the industry’s negotiations to secure GI status of that iconic Scottish product in other countries around the world?
I agree with the member on that. I will continue to do all that I can in my role in liaising with UK Government ministers to ensure that any definition of single malt is not watered down. Fortunately, the process is still on-going; DEFRA’s consultation is open until 20 May, and we will certainly be making representations to the UK Government.
Land Reform (Engagement with Highlands and Islands Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is engaging with Highlands and Islands communities on the future of land reform policy. (S6O-04513)
I fully understand the cultural, economic and social importance of land reform and community ownership to people across the Highlands and Islands, and I will always ensure that their views are heard in the development of policy. In the development of the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we consulted with rural communities across Scotland, including at public meetings in Helmsdale, Glenmoriston and Stornoway. Our proposals will bring real improvements to the way in which land is owned and managed across Scotland, and we will soon consult on the community right to buy review, in which the views of Highlands and Islands communities will again be crucial.
Like many people, I was deeply concerned to see the sale of Sleat peninsula, given the response of community members, who are surprised and worried that they will not get a say in what happens to the land next. I have written to the cabinet secretary seeking her support and asking her to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders. It should be a given that communities get the chance to purchase land when it enters the market and that they get any available support to do so. How will the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill support communities such as that on Sleat? Can she offer them any support in the meantime?
I thank Emma Roddick for raising that important issue, which we covered in the debate on land reform that took place last week. This is an example of a local community not being consulted on or made aware of the landowner’s intention to sell, which is exactly the type of issue that we will try to address, should the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed by the Parliament. Had the transparency proposals in that bill been enforced, the local community would have received prior notification of the landowner’s intention to sell. I have not yet seen the letter that Emma Roddick has sent to me, but I will consider it and see what more we can do to help the communities.
Will the cabinet secretary consider intervening and asking the Clan Donald Lands Trust to pause the sale to enable the community to look at what is happening and perhaps come up with a bid or, in some way, influence the sale of the land?
I thank Rhoda Grant for raising that question and for highlighting the issue in the chamber last week. I would have to go and see what powers there are in that respect. However, that is why we need the bill to be passed—it is so that we have the opportunity to prevent situations such as the one on Sleat from happening again. I am more than happy to follow up with Rhoda Grant on that.
Wild Wrasse (Management)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of a fisheries management plan for the future management of wild wrasse. (S6O-04514)
The Scottish Government has commissioned Seafish to undertake initial scoping work to help inform our approach to fisheries management plans for non-quota species, including wrasse. The Scottish Government has been clear that our resources are currently focused on delivering the statutory commitment in the United Kingdom Fisheries Act 2020 and the UK joint fisheries statement on the production of 43 fisheries management plans, 21 of which the Scottish Government is the lead co-ordinating authority on.
I understand that the cabinet secretary has recently agreed that appropriate assessments will be done on taking wrasse from special areas of conservation and marine protected areas. Can she confirm that the closure of the wrasse fishery between 1 December and 30 April is intended to protect wrasse species during the spawning season and that those protections are a standard part of fisheries management plans?
I would want to offer that clarity—yes, the closure is to protect wrasse. However, as I outlined when I gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on fisheries management plans, not having a plan in place does not mean that we will not take any action to look at what more we can do for this important species. Indeed, we have taken a number of measures over the past few years. We continue to keep the matter under review to see what more we can do when it comes to wrasse.
We have a supplementary from Ariane Burgess, who joins us remotely.
Dr David Bailey, who was commissioned by NatureScot in 2019 to examine whether wrasse fishing could affect protected features, has said that as a “first measure”, closing protected reefs to wrasse fishing would reduce the risk to protected features,
“ensure that at least some wrasse populations survive, and allow the ecological effects of wrasse fishing to be assessed”.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important for the sake of our aquaculture industry, our marine environment and the commercial species that depend on them that at least some wrasse populations survive?
Wrasse is of course a very important species, as I hope that I outlined in my previous response. In response to the inquiry that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee undertook on aquaculture, we set out a number of measures that we are looking to take. Moreover, we set out in that response that we received a report on the issue that the University of Glasgow produced just last year. On the back of that report and in light of that evidence, we are undertaking an appropriate assessment ahead of the wrasse fishery opening in May this year.
I assure Ariane Burgess and other members that we are taking the matter seriously. We must do what we can to ensure that we are protecting this species.
Question 4 has been withdrawn.
Agricultural Land (Development)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has made an assessment of the potential loss of agricultural land in the North East Scotland region as the result of development. (S6O-04516)
The Scottish Government has not made such an assessment at a national or regional level. The Scottish Government holds multiple data sets that relate to land use, but they alone could not support an assessment of the potential loss of agricultural land. Scotland’s fourth land use strategy is due to be published by March 2026 and, throughout its development, we will work with stakeholders regarding the multiple demands that are placed on our land and the fine balances that must be found as we move forward.
The national planning framework 4 soils policy supports new development proposals on prime agricultural land or locally important agricultural land of lesser quality in limited circumstances only.
The industrialisation of the north-east, which Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is pursuing through its monster pylon plans, is causing alarm and trauma. I recently met Angus farmers, who, along with other stakeholders, raised serious concerns with me about the overhead lines’ impact on prime agricultural land.
The use of farming machinery, such as autonomous tractors, also has worrying implications. Has the Scottish Government considered the loss of agricultural productivity that will result from SSEN’s plans, and will it commit to protecting our food security and farmers in the north-east?
The Scottish Government’s commitment to protecting not only the farmers of the north-east but farmers across the country is absolute. We have been crystal clear about that from day 1. The specific issue that Tess White is talking about is a local planning issue, and it should be for the local planning authority to decide what happens in that area.
Disease-resistant Ash Trees
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the breeding of disease-resistant ash trees. (S6O-04517)
The Scottish Government invests in forest research and science, and it jointly funds research with the United Kingdom Government and other UK devolved Administrations to further our knowledge and understanding of areas such as tree pests and diseases, tree breeding and forest resilience.
We are supporting plans for a clonal archive of resistant ash trees, which will be located in Scotland’s public forest estate. That is part of on-going work to support the breeding of disease-resistant ash trees.
The minister knows that breeding resistant ash is crucial to combating ash dieback disease. The Future Trees Trust has been leading the way on the issue in Scotland, and it has worked with the Woodland Trust to increase the volume of Scottish provenance ash in its breeding programme. However, the funding programme has been suddenly cut, which puts planting targets in jeopardy. Will the minister agree to reconsider the cut so that the programme gets back on track?
I am more than happy to follow up with Graham Simpson in writing about the specific programme that he is talking about.
Sustainable and Regenerative Agriculture
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to progress its ambition for Scotland to be a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture practice. (S6O-04518)
We are progressing the priorities that are set out in our vision for Scottish agriculture, which are high-quality food production, thriving businesses, climate action, nature restoration and a just transition.
We have maintained direct payments and launched the whole farm plan, and we introduced the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. Through the agricultural reform programme, we are working collaboratively to deliver a sustainable future for Scottish agriculture. We continue to prioritise the agri-environment climate scheme, with the 2024 round of awards increasing funding on the previous year by £3.9 million. The recently announced £14 million future farming investment scheme will encourage climate-friendly farming and support efficiency and environmental sustainability.
I welcome the minister’s update. The issue of clarifying the definition of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture” has come up during scrutiny of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. What is the Government doing to ensure that there is a clear and consistent definition and that the aims that underpin the Government’s vision, strategy and legislation are clearly understood?
I understand Monica Lennon’s point about the definition. The Scottish Government is working on a code of practice, which is being co-developed with the industry to give us a better understanding of what it should look like. We will bring forward those measures in due course.
Three members have requested to ask a supplementary question, and I intend to take them all.
Genetically modified crops play a critical role in sustainable and regenerative agriculture by enhancing crop resilience to pests, diseases and environmental stresses. That reduces the need for chemical inputs such as pesticides and herbicides, thereby minimising the environmental impact. In addition, GM crops can improve yields and nutritional quality, thereby contributing to food security and sustainable farming practices. Will the minister update the Parliament on discussions with stakeholders on introducing legislation regarding GM crops? Will he give an indication of timelines setting out the way forward?
I am surprised that Finlay Carson is talking about GM crops, because that is an entirely different conversation from the one that we have been having about gene-edited crops. The cabinet secretary and I recently attended a round-table meeting to start conversations about what the system should look like and whether there is a place for such crops in Scotland.
Given the agricultural property relief proposals and the national insurance budget decisions, I am not sure that Labour cares much about Scottish agriculture. Will the minister highlight the challenges that are posed to Scotland’s ambitions to be a world leader by Labour’s decision to end ring-fenced funding?
The United Kingdom Government’s budget decisions have not delivered the support that Scottish agriculture requires, have failed to reverse the real-terms cuts of previous years and have not provided the multiyear certainty that the sector needs. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will reduce confidence and investment in the sector even further.
Despite the UK Government’s removal of ring-fenced funding, our 2025-26 budget continues to ring fence funding for agriculture. We continue to press the UK Government to commit to meaningful engagement across the four nations on the future funding settlement for agriculture and to provide certainty and assurances on the delivery of agriculture policies following our exit from the European Union.
Last night, many members attended the Food and Drink Federation Scotland reception in the Parliament. The agriculture sector is calling for certainty. The enactment of section 29 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 to introduce a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is solely in the gift of Scottish ministers. To enable investment, innovation and confidence in the sector, will the minister confirm when section 29 will come into force and when the code will be published?
I think that Rachael Hamilton recognises the importance of proper engagement and consultation with the sector so that, when we deliver the code of practice, it has the full backing of the industry. As I have said, we are investing another £14 million in an innovation fund and, as has been demonstrated year after year, the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to being right beside the Scottish agriculture industry.
Common Fisheries Policy
To ask the Scottish Government whether its policy position in relation to an independent Scotland seeking to rejoin the European Union includes rejoining the common fisheries policy. (S6O-04519)
As set out in “Building a new Scotland: Our marine sector in an independent Scotland”, the common fisheries policy is an integral part of EU law. It is well established that membership of the CFP is a fundamental requirement of EU membership.
The Scottish Government supports the overarching principles and strategic outcomes of the CFP and their role in supporting long-term sustainable fishing. An independent Scotland in the EU, as an influential maritime nation, would have a significant opportunity to shape the future of the policy and relevant legislative and regulatory developments.
Norway, which is a country that is similar in size to Scotland, is a member of the European Free Trade Association, which gives it access to the European Economic Area. Norway thrives outside of the EU but inside the single market through controlling its own waters, managing its own resources and delivering prosperity for its people. Does the Scottish Government accept that Norway offers a viable model of European trade for an independent Scotland? What concrete steps is the Government taking to ensure that Scotland regains access to the single market?
Ash Regan is right to say that Norway offers an alternative model. However, again, it is the position of the Scottish Government that we would seek to rejoin the EU as an independent nation.
Although Norway is outside the CFP, European Economic Area members such as Norway are required to implement the vast majority of EU law, but they have little or no involvement in how those laws are made. We want to be an independent member state of the EU because we would then have the power and the ability to shape EU law and to work for the benefit of Scotland.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. Before we move on to the next portfolio, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change.
Health and Social Care
National Heath Service (Single-sex Spaces)
To ask the Scottish Government how many NHS boards have designated single-sex spaces for women. (S6O-04520)
That is a matter for individual boards, which must ensure that all their facilities comply with relevant legislation, including the Equality Act 2010. Responsibility for complying with the requirements of the 2010 act rests with individual organisations. The act is enforced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has produced guidance to support separate and single-sex service providers.
I asked a basic question, and I find it difficult to believe that the cabinet secretary cannot tell me today in the chamber how many NHS boards have single-sex spaces for women. Worse still, ministers have told parliamentary committees that they have no clue whether hospitals and health boards are following the law. The issue is about dignity and women’s safety, so will the cabinet secretary urgently write to all health boards to find out what their policies on single-sex spaces for women are? Once the responses are received, will he share those responses with MSPs?
As I said at the outset, it is a matter for individual boards, as it is for all employing organisations, to ensure that they comply with the law. We will continue to interact with boards to ensure that the guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced is being maintained. We will keep Parliament updated on that progress.
The Government has repeatedly failed to say how it is ensuring that all health and safety workplace regulations are being complied with in relation to single-sex toilets. I have asked this question before, but can the Government provide any assurance that it will take some responsibility and look to assess the current situation in our NHS and other organisations—particularly those to which the Government provides public funds—and gather the necessary data? It should not be difficult, and I think that it is essential.
The Scottish Government expects all relevant organisations, in their role as employers, to comply with the requirements of the 2010 act and other legislation that Carol Mochan references, such as the requirements of the law on health and safety in workplaces, as outlined in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The expectation to follow the rule of law is clear, and we would expect boards and other public organisations to adhere to it.
Is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care really telling us that he does not know how many of Scotland’s health boards are complying with the law? Has he not taken the time to ask that question? If he has not, what on earth is he doing?
I am not the employer of staff in the health service. The staff are employed by individual health boards, and it is their responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the law. I have made very clear to Meghan Gallacher and Carol Mochan my expectation that health boards should comply with the law—not just the 2010 act but all elements of legislation and regulation. That expectation is clear.
Cancer Waiting Times (Clinically Led Review)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of action 42 in the cancer action plan 2023 to 2026 to carry out a clinically led review on cancer waiting times. (S6O-04521)
Action 42 of the three-year cancer action plan is a commitment to
“Carry out a clinically led review of latest data and evidence and determine whether there is merit in specific additional or alternative cancer waiting times standards for different types of cancer and cancer treatment.”
The Government has been putting in place arrangements for that review, which will be under way shortly. The review will require significant clinical leadership, with appropriate engagement across a range of stakeholders. A project steering group is being established. It will support the review and determine whether any amendments to the standards would enhance patient experience and meet the national health service’s needs for the future.
I lodged the question on behalf of Breast Cancer Now, before the sad passing of our colleague Christina McKelvie. I pay tribute to Christina McKelvie, who was a strong advocate for breast cancer awareness. My thoughts are with her friends and family at this difficult time.
The 62-day target for starting treatment following urgent referral has, sadly, not been met for breast cancer for four years. Breast Cancer Now estimates that, had the target been met during that time, over 1,000 more people would have had a timely diagnosis and access to potentially life-saving treatments. The 62-day standard states that 95 per cent of eligible patients should wait no longer than 62 days from urgent suspicion of cancer referral to first cancer treatment. However, the 62-day standard is currently being met by only one of the 14 NHS boards. Does the Scottish Government agree that waiting time targets for cancer need to be reviewed so that health boards and the Scottish Government can first identify and then address the causes of the delay?
I recognise the sentiments that Neil Bibby expressed in his supplementary question, and my heart goes out to Christina McKelvie’s family, friends and loved ones.
This morning, I met Make 2nds Count, another breast cancer charity, and we had long discussions about research and the options for getting on clinical trials. The subject is very close to my heart.
I recognise Mr Bibby’s question about waiting times and the need to improve the service. That is what the Scottish Government is investing in.
Heart Disease Action Plan
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to renewing the heart disease action plan. (S6O-04522)
We are exploring a new long-term conditions strategy to better recognise the fact that many people who are living with long-term conditions, including heart disease, need the same types of support and care, regardless of their condition. We will shortly launch a full public consultation on that strategy, and we plan to publish a long-term conditions framework before the end of 2025, with action plans following thereafter.
In June, the cross-party group on heart and circulatory diseases, which I co-convene, published its inquiry report on the implementation of the current plan. We heard strong support for a specific heart disease plan, but there were concerns that a lack of focus and investment was impacting on implementation. For example, figures from British Heart Foundation Scotland showed that waiting times for cardiology and key diagnostic tests are the longest on record.
How will the minister ensure that the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland provide sufficient resource and focus to address what remains one of the leading causes of death and ill health in Scotland? Will she commit to specific actions in any long-term conditions strategy that address the unique needs of people who are affected by heart disease?
I thank Colin Smyth for his supplementary question and recognise the huge amount of work that he has done as a member of the heart and circulatory diseases CPG. Last week, I had a meeting with the British Heart Foundation, in which we discussed exactly what was behind Colin Smyth’s question. I recognise that heart conditions need to be treated with importance but that a number of areas of care for heart conditions could be replicated across other long-term conditions.
To that end, I met cardiologists and other heart clinicians just last week, and I visited the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh to see more of what it is doing in diagnostics. I absolutely understand where Mr Smyth’s question is coming from, and I commit to continuing to work closely with those who are living with heart conditions.
The issue that the minister just talked about is not being covered by many health boards, as we have seen at the cross-party group. There still seems to be a postcode lottery when it comes to individuals receiving the care and attention that they require. Having a disease action plan for the heart is vitally important. Clinicians and practitioners have come to the cross-party group to express their concerns. I have heard what the minister has said so far, but I am still not convinced that that action plan and the way forward are going to be addressed in the short term.
I recognise the work that Alexander Stewart does on the CPG. Last week, I met members of our cardiac clinical advisory team to discuss exactly those differences of service across the country. I am working with other members of the Scottish Government to look at a task and finish group so as to move forward and ensure that we have the best heart disease support and care in Scotland.
Vaccination Services (NHS Highland)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it was aware that, prior to NHS Highland taking over responsibility for vaccination services from general practitioners, there were reported concerns that the national health service board’s system did not allow GPs to know their patients’ vaccination status and that this could lead to a heightened patient risk. (S6O-04523)
Since April 2022, health boards have been responsible for delivering vaccines. The vast majority of adult vaccinations, including the flu, Covid, respiratory syncytial virus, shingles and pneumococcal vaccines, are visible to GPs via their general practice information technology system. Currently, childhood and non-routine vaccinations do not automatically flow into GP IT from the separate systems that record them, but that predates the move from GP to health board delivery, as Fergus Ewing outlined.
Some health boards may have data-sharing arrangements in place with general practices that allow health board vaccination teams direct access to patient records to add vaccination history without GPs being required to do that manually. That should be explored locally wherever possible. Any associated patient risk is mitigated by health boards providing GPs with a list of childhood and non-routine vaccines that they have administered. The Scottish Government funds GPs to manually input those into their GP systems.
The health board system has already failed. One infant lost her life because her mother did not get the vaccination offer letter until it was too late. The cabinet secretary knows that that was the case. His officials knew that, when they brought in the system, the information about who had been vaccinated could not be shared with GPs at that time. The paper chase of doing that through thousands of inputs just does not work.
Surely the service must be returned to local GPs. That is necessary to prevent the risk of further loss of life in the Highlands, which I know that we all wish to avoid. The advice that I have had from GPs is that that risk is heightened, because they do not know who has been vaccinated and who has not, because the civil servants advising the cabinet secretary allowed the system to be brought in when, in fact, it is a reckless risk to public health.
I thank Fergus Ewing for his question and his engagement—and that of the GPs he represents—over a number of meetings with me. It is not true to say that GPs do not know who has been vaccinated. As I just outlined, boards provide GPs with a list of vaccinations that they have administered across the vaccination programmes for practices to manually enter into GP systems. I recognise the point that he made about the cumbersome nature of that task, but funding is in place to allow that to happen, and it is not a novel situation.
The Scottish Government has not obstructed any changes in the vaccination model used in NHS Highland; indeed, the board has followed the required process, which is set out in legislation, to change its model. It is for NHS Highland to examine the evidence in its area and determine the model that is appropriate to those circumstances.
We have facilitated that move to the new proposed model for exactly the reasons that Fergus Ewing set out, in order to make sure that we protect public health and continue to save lives.
The issue that Fergus Ewing raised in NHS Highland highlights the need to start to adopt a basic national collaboration and communication platform. That would allow all healthcare professionals, with the permission of patients, to access basic health data that is important to the delivery of safe patient care, and would bring the Scottish national healthcare service into the modern world. Does the cabinet secretary agree?
I believe that the new NHS app and the digital front door will allow a greater expansion of that. I am pleased that NHS Lanarkshire will start the roll-out of that later this year.
The system is very much based on the Covid-19 pandemic new vaccine recording system that was built and the vaccine management tool, as well as the national clinical data store, which stores the information that is collected via the vaccine management tool. That gives us a good platform on which to build the very system that Brian Whittle is asking for.
Social Care Package Assessments (North Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership)
To ask the Scottish Government how many patients in hospital are waiting for a social care package assessment from North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. (S6O-04524)
The latest published statistics from Public Health Scotland show that, as of 3 March 2025, six people were waiting in hospital for a social care assessment in North Ayrshire. Over the past 12 months, on average, three people were recorded as waiting for a social care assessment in hospital in North Ayrshire, and no more than 12 people at any one point.
The same publication also shows that, on 3 March 2025, 44 people were waiting in hospital for a care-at-home package in North Ayrshire, which is 30 more than was the case in the same week in 2024, when, on 4 March 2024, 14 people were waiting.
The latest published statistics on delayed discharge also show that, as of 30 January, 15 people were delayed in North Ayrshire as they were awaiting a social care assessment. A further 46 people were delayed in hospital as they were awaiting completion of care arrangements, primarily for care-at-home services.
The statistics may well include patients who are delayed in a hospital that is outwith their health board area of residence. It is important that I point that out.
A constituent of mine has been in touch. She has been in hospital but ready for discharge since 17 November, as North Ayrshire health and social care partnership has been unable to provide a care package.
I am making representations, but what advice does the cabinet secretary have? Does she think that that is the longest that a current patient has been in hospital? What is being done to ensure that we stop such waits happening, given the waste of resource?
The member will be aware that we are investing in social care in order to provide support for people who need to access it. Although we have overall responsibility for health and social care support policy in Scotland, it is for local authorities and health and social care partnerships to ensure that social care support services are in place to provide people with the appropriate support in the right place and at the right time.
Our budget for 2025-26 sets out almost £2.2 billion of investment in social care and integration, exceeding our commitment to increase investment during this session of Parliament.
The Scottish Government has regular meetings with all our local systems. I would be comfortable if the member were to furnish me with more details of the individual so that I can consider raising the individual’s case with the local system, which has responsibility both statutorily and operationally for the delivery of a care package to her.
Turnpenny-Fry Syndrome
To ask the Scottish Government what support is in place for people with the condition, Turnpenny-Fry syndrome. (S6O-04525)
The Scottish Government remains committed to improving the lives of people with conditions such as Turnpenny-Fry syndrome.
Genetic testing for TFS is accessed through one of Scotland’s four regional clinical genetics services, which provide essential support to families after diagnosis, including genetic counselling and guidance on any further testing that may be necessary.
Just last week, my constituent Paul Kelly contacted me about support for his seven-year-old daughter, Harper, who I believe is the only individual in Scotland who has been diagnosed with Turnpenny-Fry syndrome. I am told that she is one of only five people to have been diagnosed with the condition in the United Kingdom. Mr Kelly advised me that, due to the rareness of the condition, the family are struggling to get any support for Harper and feel that they are being passed between different health agencies. As a result of that lack of support, including for very practical things, the family have not been able to get incontinence products from the health board.
Since being contacted by Mr Kelly and my office, NHS Lanarkshire has reached out to the family, and I hope that that contact will lead to appropriate support being put in place. However, I think that there is a bigger issue. Given that my raising of this very rare condition for my constituent is quite possibly the first time that the condition has been raised in the chamber, what steps can the Scottish Government take to ensure that more research is carried out on Turnpenny-Fry syndrome, so that people who are diagnosed with it now and in the future can get the help that they need and are entitled to expect?
I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties that Harper’s family have experienced. I assure members that the Scottish Government expects national health service boards to provide safe, effective and person-centred care, and I hope that the Kelly family are now getting appropriate support.
We know how important research is to people who are affected by ultra-rare conditions, but the fact that very small numbers of people are diagnosed with such conditions presents unique challenges in supporting clinical trials. I was pleased to attend the rare conditions disease day in March in the Parliament, when people with rare conditions made moving and powerful speeches.
We know how important research is. Scottish researchers can apply to the chief scientist office and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research for specific projects. However, for ultra-rare conditions, collaboration across the UK and internationally is essential to enable expertise to be shared, for example with the horizon Europe partnership on rare diseases.
General Practitioner Retention
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to improve GP retention. (S6O-04526)
GPs are essential to the delivery of high-quality, sustainable general practice. In November 2024, I published a plan with a suite of 20 actions to improve GP recruitment and retention. Those actions include reshaping the GP retainer scheme to provide GPs with flexible support when it is needed, expanding the Royal College of General Practitioners leadership scheme to support mid-career retention, and establishing early career fellowships to help newly qualified GPs to develop the skills for a career in general practice. In the current financial year, we have invested an additional £13.6 million to support the retention of key general practice staff.
The Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association say that some practices are freezing recruitment due to financial pressures. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to reduce costs for GP practices to enable them to hire more GPs?
I recognise the challenges that general practice faces at this time. I regularly engage with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association. Indeed, I met the chair of the GP committee of the BMA, Iain Morrison, last week and I met the entirety of the BMA committee this morning in order to understand its concerns.
We have invested an additional £73 million in general practice this financial year. That includes the investment of £13.6 million to support GPs to retain and recruit key staff. The increases in national insurance contributions that the United Kingdom Government introduced in its autumn statement have created additional costs for practices that impact on their ability to recruit. In November last year, I published our plan to improve GP recruitment and retention, including by retaining our newly qualified GPs in Scotland. I will continue to engage with the RCGP, the BMA and the local medical committees to ensure that we have a thriving GP community.
Udny Station GP surgery in my region is the latest casualty of the Scottish National Party’s chronic mismanagement of primary care. A lack of clinical workforce, rising operational costs and population growth mean that the surgery is set to close its doors, which will leave rural communities in the lurch. This is not the first time that I have mentioned the issue. Why is the SNP Government still failing to resource GP surgeries, such as the one in Udny Station, to meet the needs of rural populations? What action will it take to address this unacceptable situation?
I must challenge Tess White’s characterisation. We have invested an additional £73 million in general practice. The 2025-26 budget includes more than £2.2 billion of investment in primary care, which will take our spending on wider primary care to more than 11 per cent of the total 2025-26 health and social care resource budget. There has been an increase of more than 300 in the head count of general practitioners and we have expanded the wider multidisciplinary team to approaching 5,000 staff. The characterisation that Tess White gives is just not true.
However, I recognise that challenges remain and I recognise the particular challenges in rural and island communities—I understand that especially given my background. As I said in response to Colin Beattie, I will continue to engage with the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners to ensure that we can support general practice in all parts of the country.
The cabinet secretary knows that the health system is not working just now. The demand is going up and GPs’ responsibilities are going up, but the funding—the share of the national health service spend—has almost halved since 2004. What is the cabinet secretary doing to make sure that GPs can be recruited to local practices because they can afford it, by reversing that trend of decline in NHS funding?
I pointed Tess White to the picture of the funding that we have put forward in the budget in relation to the share of funding that goes to primary care, but I recognise Willie Rennie’s concern about the demands on general practice. My vision for what general practice can do for us, which is shared by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the BMA, is to have a sustainable, preventative health service. I will continue to work with them and I will commit the resource that I am able to commit in order to see continued stabilisation, sustainability and onward growth.
The medical director of Lothian Local Medical Committee recently stated that many practices can no longer afford to take on additional GPs and that some are at risk of going bust. Given that, in November, the cabinet secretary announced an additional £13.6 million for general practice staffing, can he advise me what impact that will have on GPs’ retention and, specifically, how many new GPs the Scottish Government expects that it will hire?
I recognise the concerns that were expressed by the Lothian Local Medical Committee, which I met, alongside Paul McLennan in his constituency capacity, last week. We had a very good conversation about how we can sustain and improve the position for general practice.
I recognise the financial challenges, which have been exacerbated by the increased employer national insurance contributions that have been meted out by the United Kingdom Government. In spite of that, we will do all that we can to make sure that the resource is allocated to increase the number of GPs and wider practice staff and to support their role in the primary care system to deliver for the people of Scotland.
I will squeeze in question 8, but I ask for succinct questions and answers to match.
Community Health Workers (Impact on Social Determinants of Health)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been made regarding the potential impact that community link workers have on the social determinants of health. (S6O-04527)
General practice community link workers play a critical role in addressing the social determinants of health. Social determinants such as debt, social isolation and housing can have a negative impact on people’s health. In such cases, link workers provide crucial support by linking people with community resources. There is good evidence from local data and evaluations from wider research of the positive impact of community link working.
Our national review of community link workers will look to expand the existing evidence base, including by improving the consistency of the data that health and social care partnerships and link worker services collect.
Community link workers in my constituency provide a vital service to the most deprived communities. However, the Labour-led West Dunbartonshire Council has cut that service despite the council receiving the highest per-head-of-population settlement of any mainland local authority. The decision has, rightly, been criticised by many, including the GMB trade union. Will the cabinet secretary join me in condemning these Labour cuts and call for them to be reversed?
I, too, have concerns about the planned cuts to link workers in West Dunbartonshire and the impact that they might have on patients, particularly those on low incomes. We know that there are clear and inextricable links between poverty and ill health and between poverty and barriers to accessing healthcare.
I understand that the integration joint board met last week to confirm its 2025-26 budget and that it agreed to reduce the number of link worker posts from nine to five whole-time equivalents. I stress the principle that link worker capacity should be targeted towards the greatest patient need, and my officials will continue to work with local partners to be clear about that principle.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change positions.
Air ais
Motion of CondolenceAir adhart
Points of Order