Official Report 1027KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I remind members who wish to ask supplementary questions to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in both questions and responses.
Fishing Industry (Parliamentary Debates)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to propose scheduling time for a parliamentary debate on the fishing industry. (S6O-04410)
The Scottish Government cares deeply about ensuring a prosperous future for fishing communities. It is important to take stock and reflect on our fishing industry, which is one of Scotland’s most important assets, as well as on the people and communities who make a living from it and their contribution to the Scottish economy. In the members’ business debate on 18 February, which was brought forward by Beatrice Wishart, I committed to scheduling Government time for a debate on fisheries. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment.
The cabinet secretary will appreciate that it has been two years since the Scottish Government brought forward such a debate. There are so many issues that need to be debated, including those around fishing deals, the end of the United Kingdom’s trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, inshore fisheries and the national maritime plan, and other views need to be heard. When will the Government schedule a debate? Will it be before the Easter recess or not?
I appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has raised. He has raised a number of important matters that we discussed during the members’ business debate to which I referred. That is why I committed to holding a debate.
That is not to say that there has been no discussion or engagement on those issues. We have been engaging closely with the sector on all those issues—that goes for both me, with the rural affairs portfolio, and for the cabinet secretary, with the climate change and net zero portfolio. As I have said, we are committed to holding that debate, and I look forward to discussing those matters with members from across the chamber.
The cabinet secretary might be aware that I have been concerned about the massive growth in the number of pots that are being used in the Forth and the impact that that is having on the stock of lobsters and crabs. Will the cabinet secretary update the chamber on when controls will be considered for introduction in order to make sure that that number does not grow any further?
I am sure that Willie Rennie will be aware of some of the interim measures that we have in place in relation to important inshore stocks. It is important that we review the measures that are under way. We are also undertaking a programme of work to look at our inshore fisheries management more widely. I am more than happy to follow up with Willie Rennie on any specific issues that he has in relation to that. An awful lot of work is under way, and I am happy to contact him to update him on it.
What the cabinet secretary missed in her earlier answer was an actual date. That is what we need, because it matters.
There is so much to talk about. Last week, for example, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation rightly spoke of its fury at the revelation that John Swinney had been advised not to use the phrase “spatial squeeze” when on a trip to Shetland. That seems very disrespectful towards the views of the industry, which is very concerned about that issue. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government to set out what its plans are to support and compensate fishing businesses that will suffer financial losses due to the construction and operation of offshore wind farms.
I have to be clear on one point. Tim Eagle will be aware of how the scheduling of parliamentary business works in this chamber. It is not for me to set a date as to when that debate is going to happen, but I have made that commitment and I have reiterated it today.
There are a number of pressures that we know are affecting the fishing industry in particular. They include pressures on our marine space, whether due to the environmental measures that are being proposed or to the expansion of offshore renewables. Some of those matters relate to my portfolio, as I outlined to Jeremy Balfour in my initial response to him, but they also involve the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin. We are engaging with the industry more widely to look at those matters in the round. As I have committed to doing, we will bring forward a debate and I look forward to discussing those matters in more detail.
Agricultural Support (Dairy Sector)
To ask the Scottish Government how the new deal for agriculture and its agricultural support schemes will aim to support the dairy sector. (S6O-04411)
The Scottish Government remains committed to maintaining direct payments, which provide vital stability to agriculture, and we will continue to co-develop new support to improve the sustainability of farming.
This year we have provided £135,000 to the dairy growth board and the Scottish dairy hub. Additionally, the recently announced flexible capital grants will provide at least £14 million in the first year to support the sector for investments in a range of areas. We are also allocating capital to food processing and marketing support to benefit the sector.
The recent announcement from Arla Foods about a potential £90 million investment for a centre of excellence at Lockerbie could be the beginning of an exciting new chapter for dairy farming in the south of Scotland. The dairy sector is providing produce of peerless quality and is synonymous with my South Scotland region. Can the minister outline how the Government intends to help ensure the future prosperity of this vital industry for years to come?
I absolutely share Emma Harper’s views, and I welcome the recent news of Arla’s investment in Lockerbie. It is a real vote of confidence in Scotland’s dairy sector. This is an exciting time for dairy in the region, with the Scottish Government also investing £4 million into the Borderlands inclusive growth deal dairy nexus project, which will drive transformational research and innovation to decarbonise the dairy sector. The rise to the top 2030 strategy outlines the ambitions for growth for dairy in Scotland to ensure future prosperity.
We continue to support the dairy growth board in seeking further opportunities for producers, including new routes for exports, product listings, domestic retail and investment in processing in Scotland. That work is producing results, including a 140 per cent increase in cheese exports since 2021.
The minister will agree that a fit-for-purpose information technology system is critical to the delivery of agricultural support schemes. Today at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, we heard concerns from a range of agricultural stakeholders that the current IT system puts future schemes at risk. Can the minister tell Parliament how much is spent annually on IT developers, programmers and maintenance for the rural sector?
The member will be well aware that we will deliver the schemes within the current capabilities. If he has specific questions, he can write to me, and we will give him specific numbers back.
Seagulls
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether seagulls should continue to be protected in law. (S6O-04412)
Like all wild birds in Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe, gulls are protected by law and should remain so. I appreciate that gulls can be a serious nuisance in urban areas. The answer is not to allow free rein to kill those birds, especially when the overall numbers of gulls, taking natural and urban populations together, are in decline.
To help tackle the problems, local authorities and property owners could do more to deter gulls from nesting on their properties. NatureScot can and does provide licences for lethal control where there are issues of public health and safety.
That response is completely tone deaf to the problems that we are seeing up and down the country. For example, Moray Council has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on the issue, to no effect. The Elgin common good fund has spent more than £50,000 in the past two years, yet the problem persists.
Elgin councillor Pete Bloomfield told me about a case of an elderly resident who left her bungalow, was attacked by a gull, fell over and broke her leg. Her carer then came outside and was also attacked by the gull. When the elderly resident returned home from hospital she was attacked again, and she was then fearful of leaving her home at all.
Does the minister accept that the problem is a growing one in communities such as Moray and across the country? What can be done about it? Will he meet concerned MSPs from across all the parties to discuss the issue in more detail?
As I said in my initial answer, I am well aware that urban gulls can cause problems, but there is absolutely no doubt that the number of gulls is dropping. Businesses and people can do more to protect their own properties by not leaving bags of rubbish and by not allowing feeding in towns and cities. To make sure that we preserve—[Interruption.]
Douglas Ross is sitting shaking his head. I will give the member some numbers. The number of lesser black-backed gulls has fallen by 48 per cent in their natural environment, yet it has gone up in the urban environment. [Interruption.] There is a responsibility on all of us. I am not dismissing the point that Douglas Ross makes. I absolutely get the fact that urban gulls are a problem, but killing them and giving out licences willy-nilly is not the answer. There has to be a way for us to cohabit with the gulls in one way or another, either by reducing their nesting or by creating difficulty for their nesting. Killing them, which is what I am being constantly asked to do, is not the answer.
I would encourage members to ask their questions and then not seek to ask more or make comments from a sedentary position.
It is clear that the Tories are now declaring a war on wildlife. It is seagulls this week; it will be white-tailed eagles next week and beavers the week after that.
I am pleased that the minister recognises that herring gulls in particular have declined in population by almost half in the past 40 years, and that a lot of issues that have been described are a result of poor waste management issues in many of our towns. Will he listen to science-based organisations, including RSPB Scotland, and support the wider recovery of sea birds and the habitats that they need to thrive?
I did not answer Douglas Ross’s question—I apologise. I am absolutely prepared to meet with anyone to try to find solutions to the problems that we have. I accept that there are problems. However, we cannot refuse the fact that gull numbers are decreasing in their natural habitats. We must do something to get them back to their natural habitats and to reduce the tension between the gulls and the people living in communities.
Douglas Ross is right. In Eyemouth, aggressive gulls have attacked young children and they are a blight on businesses that are trying to trade in difficult conditions.
The issue is that the licensing scheme is impractical. Can the minister look at the licensing scheme itself? How can he support communities that are looking for a strategic approach to controlling gulls through management plans, improved signage and gull-proof bins?
As I have already said in response to Douglas Ross and Mark Ruskell, I am more than happy to look at what we can do collectively in order to find a solution to the issue. However, directly issuing licences to kill gulls is not the only answer.
Inheritance Tax System Change (Potential Impact on Agriculture)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what assessment it has made of the potential impact on agriculture in Scotland, including in the West of Scotland region, of the United Kingdom Government decision to change the inheritance tax system for family farms. (S6O-04413)
As I have said previously, the issue has been raised with the UK Government on a number of occasions, most recently on 6 February with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We will continue to engage with the UK Government on the issue.
The changes to the agricultural property relief will hit farming families across Scotland, so it is disappointing that there was no prior indication of the change or engagement with the Scottish Government on it. Scottish Government officials are working alongside their counterparts in His Majesty’s Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that Scotland’s tenant farmers are protected from the UK Government’s poorly designed changes and do not become liable for inheritance tax.
Our position remains unchanged: the changes to inheritance tax should be paused and an immediate review carried out. The UK Government must also urgently commit to undertaking and publishing full impact assessments of the impact that the changes will have in Scotland.
This issue demonstrates why it would be better for all tax powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that a suitably tailored position can be created for Scotland.
With international instability increasing, food security has never been more important. Placing more burdens on farmers only increases the cost of food production, so many farmers leave the industry.
I have been contacted by constituents from East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire, and from Argyll and Bute, who have expressed concern about the dangerous UK Labour Government’s family farm tax. What is the Scottish Government doing, for its part, to ensure that the farming industry does not disappear because of too-harsh taxes?
As Pam Gosal is aware, those tax decisions are made by Westminster. I very much want them to be made here in Scotland so that we can create suitable—[Interruption.]
Finlay Carson is shaking his head. The Conservatives ask us these questions and when we give them the answers, they shake their heads. The point that I am making is that if they want to have tax decision-making powers in the Scottish Parliament, they have only to vote for that and we will manage to make it happen.
On the substantive part of Pam Gosal’s question, the Scottish Government is doing everything in its power to make sure that we create an industry that is resilient in the long term for the people of Scotland, to provide food security and to help to maintain our environment and our biosecurity. A range of measures are in place to do so.
There are a number of supplementaries. I will try to get in as many as I can, but they will need to be brief.
The APR proposals from Labour are the latest in a long line of attacks on Scottish agriculture by successive UK Governments. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cumulative impact of Westminster policies in recent years, including the APR proposals, on Scottish agriculture?
We share Willie Coffey’s concerns about the negative impacts that are being caused by the failure of the UK Government. It is clear that decisions that are made by the UK Government have significant impacts on Scotland—as we have seen in agriculture with the inheritance tax changes and the Barnettisation of the agricultural budget allocation.
We remain committed to maintaining direct payments, thereby providing vital stability to agriculture and contributing to the delivery of the vision for agriculture. We will continue to reach out to the UK Government: it is imperative that it works with the devolved nations in a joined-up manner to deliver policy that benefits the people of Scotland.
Does the minister recognise that the UK Government has said that around 520 agricultural estates will be affected, that that has been confirmed by a “BBC Verify” report and that up to three quarters of farmers will pay nothing as a result of the changes? What will that mean for farming in Scotland?
I am sorry, but I simply do not accept Claire Baker’s assessment. We have been told by the industry that far more people will be affected by the family farm tax. [Interruption.] The UK Government did not even recognise the issue around tenant farmers. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but anything that members want to present to the chamber on behalf of the UK Government needs to be fully informed, because it is clear that it is not. [Interruption.] The UK Government did not know what it was doing, it did not know that its changes would be the death knell for family farms, and it will continue to go down that road and to alienate the people who feed this country.
Mr Smyth, I would be grateful if you did not provide a running commentary while the minister is responding.
Last Friday, my colleague Willie Coffey and I met NFU Scotland members from North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. Labour’s tax grab on family farms eclipses all other concerns that farmers have, and it is impossible to overstate their anxiety. Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it is “highly uncertain” that the measures will raise even the small sums that are forecast, what response has the minister had to the representations about scrapping the tax that he mentioned having made?
Responses have been tone deaf or we have been met with silence. Our position remains that the changes to inheritance tax should be paused and that an immediate review should be carried out. The UK Government must urgently commit to undertaking and publishing a full impact assessment of the impacts that the changes that it is making will have on farmers in Scotland.
Scottish Food and Drink (Provenance)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect the value of provenance in the Scottish food and drink industry. (S6O-04414)
Scotland’s food and drink industry is a vitally important part of the economy. It is a £15-billion industry, which has more than 17,000 businesses that employ around 129,000 people, and it reaches into all parts of Scotland.
In order to protect and promote provenance in the sector, we have provided £10 million over the course of 2023 to 2025 to support the delivery of Scotland’s food and drink strategy, “Sustaining Scotland. Supplying the World.” Since 2014, we have provided more than £7 million to the Scotland food and drink export plan to help businesses to exploit the most significant opportunities for Scotland.
We are fortunate that Scotland is home to products that are recognised around the world for their quality. Thankfully, the UK Government has U-turned on its damaging plans to water down the definition of “single malt”, which would have been detrimental to our whisky industry.
Will the cabinet secretary assure me and, more importantly, the industry that the Scottish Government will continue to support and promote Scottish food and drink producers and their products, unlike the Labour Party, which, once again, has failed to fulfil a pre-election promise—its promise to back Scottish producers to the hilt?
On Clare Haughey’s first point, I make it clear that we have not yet had official confirmation of that U-turn in the UK Government’s position, although it has been outlined to the UK Parliament by Treasury ministers. That process is still very much under way at the moment.
I offer an absolute assurance to members across the chamber and to the wider industry that we will continue to support our food and drink sector and its incredible products, which we know are enjoyed at home and abroad. We do that in a number of ways. We support the “Go Local” programme, which is about encouraging promotion of local products. We provide funding to the Scottish Wholesale Association to help it to support our Scottish wholesalers and producers to increase the volume of local produce that is sold. As I outlined in my initial answer, more widely we also support Scotland’s food and drink strategy.
We will continue to do all that we can to support our incredible industry in Scotland.
Migrant Workers (Agriculture Sector)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what support can be provided to migrant workers in the agricultural sector in Scotland. (S6O-04415)
We fully recognise the valuable contribution that migrant workers make to supporting Scotland’s seasonal production and the economy.
The Scottish Government supports those workers by enforcing the pay and conditions that are stipulated in the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order 2024; by funding the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution to provide practical, emotional and financial support; and by subsidising the Worker Support Centre, which it has done since 2022, to prevent labour exploitation and inform future policy.
Ms Gougeon met Mr McLennan last September and actioned Scottish Government officials to scope and develop a bespoke standard to uphold conditions for seasonal workers’ accommodation. That work is on-going and is engaging with relevant stakeholders.
I am glad to hear of that progress, because the issues that are facing migrant farm workers in Scotland are well documented. They include unsafe, poor quality and cramped accommodation, pay being withheld or not in line with the agricultural minimum wage, and travel not being supported or accounted for in hours. In the north-east, sadly, those experiences are common.
In advance of the forthcoming season, what more can the Scottish Government do, working with partners such as NFU Scotland and the Worker Support Centre, to ensure that the food that we put on our tables has not been produced in exploitative and punitive conditions?
As I said in my initial answer, the Scottish Government is providing funding through various support mechanisms. Ms Gougeon has met Mr McLennan, and there are various other measures in relation to making sure that agricultural rural workers are looked after properly.
Answers to parliamentary questions that were lodged by Richard Leonard on the unjust treatment and exploitation of migrant workers in agriculture revealed a significant rise in 2024 in the percentage of businesses underpaying migrant workers. Will the Scottish Government increase the number of control test inspections by the Scottish agricultural wages enforcement team to ensure that all workers receive their proper wages?
We passed the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which gives police and prosecutors greater powers to detect and bring to justice those who are responsible for those types of offences.
Wildlife Crime
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to reduce the level of wildlife crime. (S6O-04416)
The Scottish Government has taken numerous actions to tackle wildlife crime in recent years, including increased penalties for the most serious offences, licensing schemes for hunting with dogs, and increasing the powers of Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspectors.
We work with a number of partners to raise awareness of wildlife crime. I was pleased to open the Scottish wildlife crime conference last week and to witness the partnership in practice. I also highlight the recently published 2023 annual wildlife crime report, which reported a decrease of 23 per cent in recorded wildlife offences in comparison with the previous year’s report.
It is encouraging that there have been some better statistics of late. However, there have also been some recent incidences of what the Scottish Gamekeepers Association has called “guerrilla rewilding”, in relation to the illegal releases of lynx and feral pigs. I therefore ask: what is the Scottish Government doing to tackle what is a very serious problem?
I absolutely agree with Liz Smith’s point. I reiterate that we strongly condemn the illegal release of any species in Scotland. The recent releases of lynx and wild boar in the Cairngorms were extremely reckless and caused legitimate concern for the public, as well as posing serious risks to the welfare of the animals that were released.
Police Scotland is currently investigating possible sightings of lynx in Galloway, and NatureScot has put trail cameras in the area.
The minister is aware of the unintended loophole in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 that allows some grouse moor owners to apply for a grouse shooting licence that covers only the small area of their estate that is directly used for grouse shooting rather than the whole estate, even though the whole estate is managed to enable operation of the grouse moor.
Does the minister recognise that, if that loophole is not closed, the 2024 act will not have its intended effect of ending the illegal killing of birds of prey that is associated with some grouse moors? If the offence takes place outside the small licence area, it cannot be considered in licensing decisions, which is reducing the impact of licensing as a deterrent to wildlife crime.
I do not have the exact numbers in relation to the number of licences that have been issued by NatureScot or that will be issued this coming year. However, NatureScot is working with landholders to make sure that licences are effective in exactly the way that the 2024 act requires, and I am confident that that is what will happen.
Question 8 was not lodged, so that concludes questions on rural affairs.
There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio, to allow members on the front benches to change.
Health and Social Care
The next portfolio is health and social care. Again, members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in supplementary questions, so brevity in questions and responses would be appreciated.
Audiology Services (NHS Grampian)
To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of referrals to audiology services at NHS Grampian are seen within the 18-week target. (S6O-04418)
NHS Grampian monitors referrals, and advises that the average waiting time between referral and assessment is between 12 and 18 months.
I recognise that that is not good enough, which is why our budget will provide a record £21.7 billion for health and social care, including almost £200 million to reduce waiting lists and support a reduction in delayed discharge. By March 2026, we expect no one to be waiting longer than 12 months for a new out-patient, in-patient or day-case treatment.
I have heard from constituents who have had to wait for more than two years to get a hearing aid. A review of audiology services was carried out in 2022, but there seems to have been no improvement since then. How many of the 55 recommendations from the report of that review have been implemented?
Audiology is considered a clinical priority area, and the Scottish Government remains committed to its vision for an integrated and community-based hearing service in Scotland. While our response to the independent review on audiology in Scotland is implemented, we continue to work with the national health service, the community and voluntary sector and private providers to identify and cost an appropriate model for community care for any future service reform and ensure that the voices of those with lived experience inform that work. I would be more than happy to meet Mr Lumsden and his constituent to take that area forward.
North East Scotland Health and Social Care Partnerships (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will outline its funding strategy for health and social care partnerships in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-04419)
Although the Scottish Government has overall responsibility for social care policy in Scotland, it is for local authorities and health boards to ensure that health and social care partnerships are funded and can meet the needs of local people.
Our 2025-26 budget continues to prioritise additional investment in social care and includes almost £2.2 billion for the sector, which exceeds our commitment to increase funding by 25 per cent by almost £350 million. We have also provided significant additional resources to local authorities and expect social care to be prioritised by them.
Although budgets are the responsibility of local partners, we will continue to engage with the sector on the significant financial pressures that it is under.
I recently met Aberdeenshire responders for care at home in Huntly and Banchory. Seventy per cent of responders now face reduced hours, demotion to lower-paid and junior roles or—even worse—redundancy. Despite that, the responders’ concern was for the people for whom they care. Many had suggestions for savings but were never asked. Now, they are gagged from social media, and some are even forbidden from coming to see me, their MSP.
Every integration joint board in Scotland has told Neil Gray that it will not be possible to sustain existing levels of care across all services. Has the Government given up caring?
Absolutely not. I recognise the concern that has been outlined. I am extremely concerned by what Alexander Burnett narrated about the ability of members of staff to come up with solutions or seek a responsible response to the pressures that are felt. He is absolutely right. Those service providers have the interests of their patients first and foremost, of course. I would be interested in having a further discussion with Mr Burnett about the issues that he has raised, because the situation is extremely concerning.
To go back to funding, it is for local authorities and health boards to arrive at the appropriate funding of our health and social care partnerships.
For 30 years, Home-Start schemes in Aberdeenshire have been supporting families with young children who experience any of a range of health and social difficulties. I am told that the devastating decision to terminate funding to Home-Start came after its board of trustees was assured by Aberdeenshire Council that not only would its funding contract continue, but it would receive an uplift.
Does the Scottish Government’s approach to health and social care take account of the benefits of early intervention to support struggling families, and how will it help families in Aberdeenshire who are looking for support in the light of those cuts to Home-Start?
I return to the fact that decisions are made based on local decision-making prioritisation. It is for local authorities and health boards to ensure that health and social care partnerships are appropriately funded to meet the needs of the local population.
On the second part of Mercedes Villalba’s question, which is about the Government’s prioritisation of preventative measures and whole-family support interventions, of course that is what we support; that is at the heart of our agenda. That is why we hope and expect that our health boards, local authorities and partnerships will be doing exactly that.
With the reminder that the question is about partnerships in the North East Scotland region, I call Bill Kidd for a supplementary question .
I will cancel it. Thank you very much.
Port Glasgow Health Centre Replacement
To ask the Scottish Government what dialogue it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde regarding a replacement for Port Glasgow health centre. (S6O-04420)
The Scottish Government meets regularly with colleagues from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and it is due to meet with the assistant director of infrastructure, planning and delivery on 13 March. A wide variety of issues will be discussed, including the board’s primary care priorities, which we know will include Port Glasgow health centre.
Following the United Kingdom spending review, the Scottish Government intends to update and publish a refreshed infrastructure investment plan, which will outline what capital projects will be taken forward.
Replacing Port Glasgow health centre is a key priority for my constituency. It would help to deliver better outcomes for patients and provide a better workplace for staff. We have only to look at the £21 million Greenock health centre replacement; that proves the point. Will the cabinet secretary accept an invitation, alongside NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s new chief executive, to visit Port Glasgow health centre to see the condition of the existing building and why a new facility is so urgently needed?
I thank Stuart McMillan for his question and for highlighting the investment that the Scottish Government and the board have made in the new Greenock health centre and the obvious impact that that has had. I am more than happy to accept the invitation to visit Port Glasgow, and I acknowledge the importance of the matter to Stuart McMillan and his constituents.
I am fully aware of the need for additional primary care investment, not just in Port Glasgow but further afield. I understand that it is one of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s top primary care priorities—if not its number 1 priority. As I am sure the Presiding Officer will be aware, the capital funding position remains challenging, but I am working closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the refresh of the infrastructure investment plan, the results of which will be published later this year, so that we can set out what we can do to address the situation in Port Glasgow and with other primary care facilities across Scotland.
The cabinet secretary knows that there are a number of important capital projects across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that are beset by serious delays, including the new radionuclide dispensary and the institute of neurological sciences. The Government says that it is committed to publishing a new infrastructure investment plan later in the year. Will that include details of timescales for delivery of those critical projects, which must progress so that patients can be assured that they will happen without further delay?
I am keen to see our capital programme continue. Paul Sweeney listed a number of projects that I am desperately keen to see move forward. Paul Sweeney has some agency in that regard. The long-term capital funding perspective is largely driven by what will be detailed in the United Kingdom Government’s spending review later this month. I urge him to unite with the Scottish Government in urging the UK Government to invest in capital provision. It is good for the economy, it is incredibly important for our public services, and it would be remiss of a UK chancellor not to do so.
“Women’s Health Plan 2021 to 2024: Final Report”
To ask the Scottish Government what additional focus areas it has identified, following the publication of the “Women’s Health Plan 2021 to 2024: Final Report”. (S6O-04421)
Women’s health is a priority for the Government, which is why Scotland was the first country in the United Kingdom to publish a women’s health plan in August 2021. We have started work to bring together an updated evidence base and gather views from women and girls, including the lived experience stakeholder group and from our stakeholders, with the intention of publishing the next phase of the women’s health plan in 2025.
Timely access to gynaecology services will be a priority, with early discussions also indicating pelvic health and optimising future health as potential areas of focus.
The women-centred approach to health is long overdue, and although progress is being made, there is a way to go, including in improving human papillomavirus immunisation and cervical cancer screening. Figures from health boards this week show that some women are waiting more than eight months for further checks following an abnormal smear test. Colposcopy exams can help to identify cervical cancer, but too many women are having to wait months for those vital follow-up checks. How is the Scottish Government working with health boards to address those waiting periods and ensure that early intervention is embedded into the cervical screening process?
We certainly agree that the speed of colposcopy is not good enough, which is why our 2025-26 budget provides £21 billion for health and social care. To offer some reassurance, following an abnormal sample, patients at the very highest risk of cervical cancer will be referred on a fast-tracked urgent suspicion of cancer pathway for further diagnostic tests. Where results show a low or moderate risk, patients will be offered a routine colposcopy.
Without wishing to underestimate the anxiety that is experienced by those waiting on a routine appointment, and while wishing to offer reassurance, it is important to remember that fewer than one in 1,000 patients who are referred for a colposcopy are found to have a cervical cancer that requires immediate treatment.
We are absolutely committed to eliminating cervical cancer. We have established an expert group, which is chaired by women’s health champion Professor Anna Glasier. Eliminating cervical cancer is within our reach, and she will provide recommendations on how Scotland can reach the targets set by the World Health Organization.
I call Rachael Hamilton for a brief supplementary question.
In its 2021 manifesto, the Scottish National Party promised to reduce endometriosis diagnosis times to less than 12 months by the end of 2025, yet waiting times are still eight and a half years. Following the publication of the women’s health plan report, will that target be met?
I am aware that women are still waiting too long for an endometriosis diagnosis. We have discussed in the chamber that a definitive diagnosis requires an invasive laparoscopy test, which is not appropriate at the immediate first presentation. There is a process to work towards a presumptive diagnosis and then on to the invasive test that can confirm whether endometriosis is present.
There is no doubt that women are waiting too long. There has been an on-going series of work all over the system to increase awareness among women and health professionals and to tighten up the referral pathway to ensure that women are appropriately, rapidly and promptly referred into the system. As I said, though, people are waiting too long for gynaecology appointments, and we have invested extra money to try to improve that situation.
National Health Service (Pay Negotiations)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on NHS pay negotiations for 2025-26. (S6O-04422)
I am incredibly grateful to our hard-working NHS Scotland staff for the care that they provide to patients day in, day out, and I am committed to ensuring that they continue to be supported and valued, and that NHS Scotland remains an employer of choice. I therefore confirm that pay negotiations for agenda for change staff will commence on 19 March. For consultants, specialty doctors, general practitioners and dentists, we await recommendations from the independent doctors and dentists pay review body. For resident doctors, we will engage directly with the British Medical Association Scotland to arrange for pay negotiations to commence.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the anger and frustration among the NHS workforce in the light of the delay in starting pay negotiations for the coming year. Does he accept that any negotiations will need to rebuild trust, given his decision to U-turn on the Government’s commitment to implement the reduction in the working week for NHS staff? Will he tell us whether that was his decision, or was it John Swinney’s and he was simply the messenger?
There has been no U-turn on our commitment to get to 36 hours for agenda for change staff in a reduced working week. The commitment that was given in the pay deal was to get to 36 hours by April 2026, and that is what is being delivered. A recommendation of the reduced working week working group suggested an implementation of 30 minutes over three years, but there was no commitment from the Government on that provision.
I recognise the frustration that exists among staff and I continue to engage with unions in that regard. However, I have to ensure that the reduced working week is implemented in a safe way that maintains capacity and ensures that we can deliver what we wish to see in the NHS over the coming year. I have met with unions to explain my position and my decision, which was taken by me.
In the face of impending industrial action in 2024, the cabinet secretary negotiated and agreed the commitment to pay and improved conditions, including reducing hours. He agreed to the timescale. There were no clauses that indicated that the Scottish Government commitment was subject to any decisions elsewhere, and he has reneged on that commitment.
Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the commitments belong to him and the Scottish Government, and that he must own those decisions? How can anyone take the Scottish Government at its word in future negotiations?
The pay deal that was arrived at two pay deals ago was for a reduced working week to 36 hours, to be arrived at by April 2026. When I came into post, I implemented the first 30 minutes last year. There was always going to be a test-and-learn approach based on the implementation of that first 30 minutes, which has been challenging in some parts of the system.
There has been no reneging—there is a clear commitment and a clear process by which we arrive at 36 hours next April. I will continue to engage with trade union colleagues and staff as to that implementation, because I am committed to honouring the deal that we signed, which committed us to 36 hours by April 2026. I reiterate that there was no commitment as to the process for how that was going to be arrived at, but I have given staff and unions certainty as to how it will be arrived at over the coming year.
Question 6 was not lodged.
Gyneacological Health Services (Access)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting people to access gynaecological health services. (S6O-04424)
In 2024-25, we allocated more than £450,000 to gynaecology from our £30 million investment in planned care. That delivered around 3,500 additional new out-patient appointments. The 2025-26 budget will provide an extra £200 million to help to reduce waiting times and improve capacity. Gynaecology will be a key priority area. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, and our women’s health champion, have been meeting with clinicians to better understand the challenges; to discuss innovative solutions; and to reiterate our commitment to prioritise timely access to gynaecology services in the next phase of the women’s health plan.
Regular checks are an essential part of a proactive approach to gynaecological health. Can the minister outline the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to encourage women to undergo regular screenings? What action is being taken to reduce waiting lists for gynaecological appointments in NHS Lanarkshire?
On the issue of waiting lists, as I said in my previous answer, gynaecology will be targeted as the key priority area for additional funding throughout the next year. We are currently reviewing health board plans to clear the longest wait from that specialty.
As I mentioned in answer to a previous question, the elimination of cervical cancer is within Scotland’s grasp and the cervical cancer elimination group is exploring strategies for increasing cervical screening uptake, including self-sampling, with an anticipated United Kingdom national screening committee recommendation this spring. Our equity in screening strategy and related action plan, published in 2023 and supported by a £1 million annual funding to address inequalities in uptake, cements our vision for access for all eligible individuals across the full screening pathway.
With regard to gynaecological waits, that investment may be there on paper, but it comes down to the reality on the ground: women in Scotland are currently waiting on average eight years for an endometriosis diagnosis. Following diagnosis, things do not get any better. Here in NHS Lothian, one of my constituents, Jenny Macfarlane, has been waiting for urgent surgery since July 2023. She told me that she has been informed that, after already waiting for 81 weeks, her surgery will now not take place until the end of 2025. Due to that time lapse, she will also likely need another expensive MRI scan. That news has a detrimental impact on her mental health and, as she put it, on her will to live.
Question.
Minister, for how much longer must women in Lothian endure unnecessary suffering while waiting for life-changing medical treatment?
Always speak through the chair.
I agree that some women are waiting too long for intervention and, as I have already stated, we are working to improve the situation. I apologise to women who are having to wait and to cope with a painful and debilitating condition.
There are some green shoots that the member can pass on to her constituent. To the end of January, health boards reported that they had delivered 75,500 appointments and procedures, against a plan of 64,000. Broken down, that includes almost 56,500 diagnostic procedures, which exceeds the original plan to deliver 40,000 of those procedures by almost 41 per cent and has reduced the size of the waiting lists for imaging and scopes. As I said, gynaecology appointments and patients were prioritised last year and they will be prioritised again this year. Gynaecology patients will be benefiting from the improvement in performance.
Yesterday, a cross-party group of MSPs met the Galloway community hospital action group, which raised concerns about the lack of maternity services in the west of the region, leaving women having to travel more than 70 miles to give birth. Will the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care agree to meet members of the community action group in order to discuss their concerns about the decision that has been taken by the integration joint board?
The member’s question relates to maternity services, rather than gynaecology. I defer to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on that, as she can give him a fuller answer. I know that she has previously met the individuals that he has mentioned, and I am confident that she would be more than happy to meet them again in order to hear about the latest developments and work out solutions.
I note that Karen Adam is not in the chamber to ask question 8, so I cannot call it. That is disappointing. I expect an explanation and an apology from the member.
I also note that the opening speaker in the debate on single-sex spaces in the public sector, which is the next item of business, is not in the chamber. Unfortunately, I will have to suspend the meeting briefly until the situation changes.
14:46 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Single-sex Spaces (Public Sector)