Official Report 1029KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.
Land Banking (Highlands and Islands)
To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its policies on land reform and land use, what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any action that can be taken to tackle land banking investment scams in the Highlands and Islands, in light of the reported impact that such scams can have on the right of a community to have more of a say in how the land that they live on is used.
There are complexities in responding to financial investment scams in Scotland, given that financial services and consumer redress and enforcement are reserved.
We need to understand the prevalence of such scams. I advise people who have experienced them to contact Advice Direct Scotland for clear, practical advice. It might also be appropriate to report the issue to Police Scotland, where an assessment of any appropriate criminal enforcement action can be made.
In circumstances where land banking investment scams threaten protected sites such as sites of special scientific interest, appropriate enforcement action can be taken by relevant agencies.
More widely, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that communities have a say in how their land and assets are used. The “Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement”, as revised by the Scottish Government in 2022, sets out that
“There should be meaningful collaboration and community engagement in decisions about land.”
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, which will be appreciated by those who have been in touch with me when I pass it on. My team has recently been dealing with multiple reports of land banking investment scams, including a number that have taken place around the Spean Bridge area. Those scams clearly have not only an impact on those who attempt to invest in the land, but a detrimental effect on local communities, and they contribute to the sense that our land can be sold off in bits to the highest bidder. What wider action is being taken to ensure that local communities and the natural environment are afforded greater protection from such scams?
First, it is concerning to hear about the prevalence of the scams that Emma Roddick seems to be encountering across the region. As I hope that I was able to outline in my initial response to her, we recognise the serious impact that financial scams of any nature can have on people and the particular impacts that land banking investment scams can have on local communities. I mentioned in my initial response the appropriate avenues through which to seek advice on such scams.
On the specific example that Emma Roddick has mentioned, a number of public bodies are involved in responding to the issue. Parallel activities are being taken forward by NatureScot, Police Scotland, Highland Council and Scottish Forestry to address the situation.
More broadly, the Government agrees that communities should be more involved in decisions that are made about land in their area, which is why we have more options than ever for communities to take ownership of land and assets. We are looking to improve on that and to introduce further measures through our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
A forestry grant scheme that has been developed by EJD Forestry Ltd has been proposed for an area near Morebattle in my constituency. The community is very concerned about EJD Forestry’s intention to use the land for carbon credits for corporate entity use. It is also concerned about visual impact, biodiversity loss and the lack of benefit to the community, including jobs. Community views are likely to be disregarded, as they are being disregarded across Scotland right now. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the Scottish National Party policy of the right tree in the right place, or is that yet another broken promise?
I agree with the right tree in the right place. If Rachael Hamilton wants to follow up with me in more detail on the development that she mentioned, I will be more than happy to look into the specific points that she has raised. However, such applications normally go through a rigorous process. I would expect there to be community engagement and involvement as part of that process, and I would expect that any potential developer would take the issues that have been raised very seriously. Again, if Rachael Hamilton wants to follow up with me in writing, I will be more than happy to look at the matter.
Do such scams not highlight the need to ensure that landowners work in the public interest? Should there not be a test to ensure that those who buy large tracts of Scottish land will act in the public interest, so that such scams cannot take place?
The member raises an important point. We covered a number of issues in relation to that in detail when I was at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday for stage 1 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Land ownership and land management come with responsibility. We have interim standards in place, including the land rights and responsibilities statement. We are looking to build on that with the proposals in the bill, and of course we will consider all of the evidence from stage 1 to see how we can strengthen and improve it.
Question 2 was not lodged.
Selective Fishing Gear
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on annual reporting of its incentivisation of selective fishing gear and low-impact techniques that the rural affairs secretary committed to commissioning in January 2023. (S6O-04316)
No report has been completed to date, but that is because we have been delivering the necessary policy changes to how catch opportunities are distributed. That included the 2024 additional quota consultation, which increased catch opportunities for the non-sector fleet, which comprises vessels predominantly using more selective fishing gear or gear that has a reduced impact on the seabed.
For 2025, we have introduced an initiative whereby vessels can apply for more of the west of Scotland cod quota. That seeks to incentivise the use of selective fishing gear in vessels and the use of fishing techniques that have a reduced impact on the environment.
We have not seen the report that the cabinet secretary committed to. The Scottish Government has had those powers for five years, but the United Kingdom Government is making far more progress by allocating all additional quota for a suite of stocks via its incentivisation scheme.
Will the cabinet secretary consider the UK Government’s approach? Will she commit to ensuring that all catches made by recipients of the bonus quota will be recorded and accounted for, to allow an understanding of what is reducing bycatches and what is not, in line with the legal duties that are set out in the Fisheries Management Act 1998 and the national marine plan?
I appreciate that Colin Smyth will be disappointed that the report has not been published yet, but I hope that I have been able to outline that we have focused the resource to develop the policies that will ultimately do what the report seeks to evaluate.
Colin Smyth touched on some of the projects that are happening in England. We are aware of a pilot on community quota management that is taking place in Cornwall, which is taking advantage of the involvement of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation and has established quota management responsibilities.
Various approaches are happening elsewhere that we could potentially consider in Scotland, but we have to clarify what the goals of any pilot might be. Anything that we look to implement and the actions that we undertake now are, of course, in line with the responsibilities that are set out in the 1998 act.
Encouraging innovation and incentivising specific techniques and gear requires investment. Based on the European maritime and fisheries fund budget for 2021 to 2027 and on Scotland’s sea area, our funding share should have been about £62 million per annum, but our fishers were short changed by the UK Tory Government. Has the cabinet secretary had any indication that the new UK Government will rectify the situation, or will it be more of the same from lacklustre Labour for Scotland’s fishers, i.e. no positive change?
Ms Whitham, I remind you that nicknames are not permitted in discourse in the chamber.
I thank Elena Whitham for raising that important point. Unfortunately, I cannot offer the assurance that she seeks that the Treasury is thinking again about the issue, despite numerous attempts by us to ask the UK Government to reconsider its allocation methodology more broadly, especially in relation to the recent announcements on the UK Government budget.
Previously, we had seven-year certainty in our fisheries and marine funding and we received our fair share of the funding when we were members of the EU. However, since we left, we have received an annual allocation of £14 million for the marine fund Scotland.
We can look at some relevant comparisons. Denmark, which has a smaller marine area and a smaller overall country size than Scotland, receives £25 million equivalent. Therefore, we are not receiving our fair share, and we will continue to press the UK Government for resolution.
I slightly disagree with that, because the Scottish Government has made cuts within the budget. We can talk about what comes from elsewhere, but it is also important to talk about what the cabinet secretary delivers here in Scotland.
What data do we collect in Scotland on the use of the right type of fishing gear and techniques? What further measures could the cabinet secretary put in place to ensure that we are moving towards having the most sustainable fisheries that we can?
As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.
I have to address an important point there. Tim Eagle talks about cuts to the budget, but we have not cut. We have passed on in full our allocation from the UK Government. Again, there has been £14 million for the marine fund Scotland, and the marine directorate has an increase in its budget for the coming year, so I do not know where some of that is coming from.
On the part of Tim Eagle’s question about encouraging sustainable fishing and the use of gear, we want to incentivise and support that through our marine fund Scotland. I am more than happy to follow up in more detail with Tim Eagle on the other specific points that he raises.
Question 4 has been withdrawn.
Ferry Services (Arran)
To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross-government co-ordination on islands, including connectivity, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding support in the draft budget 2025-26 to improve ferry services to Arran. (S6O-04318)
I reassure Mr Gibson that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands discusses those matters regularly with me and colleagues. She is very aware that we intend to invest more than £530 million in the coming year to support and enhance ferry services, including for Arran.
I want to make members aware that work on the Ardrossan harbour business case has been expanded to explore alternative options. I have instructed Transport Scotland and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd to progress discussions around the Scottish Government’s potential purchase of Ardrossan harbour. That would of course require a fair negotiated settlement and due diligence to be completed but makes clear the Government’s commitment to the future of Ardrossan harbour. I confirm that funding for a potential purchase of Ardrossan harbour forms part of the 2025-26 Scottish Government budget.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply and warmly welcome the confirmation that the Scottish Government is actively pursuing the purchase of Ardrossan harbour. Many of the issues that have plagued progress on the redevelopment project stem from private ownership of the port, Brodick’s redevelopment having been completed seven years ago. The cabinet secretary is to be congratulated on breaking through the logjam to undo the damage that has been caused by Tory privatisation, but can she say when a final agreement with Peel Ports is likely to conclude and when we might finally see shovels in the ground at Ardrossan?
Mr Gibson might be aware, and should be aware, that I would not want to say anything about timescales or conclusions that would cause an issue with the on-going negotiations, which are being conducted in good faith. However, I assure him that I and the Scottish Government are committed to Ardrossan harbour. Kenny Gibson, as the constituency MSP, has been formidable in pressing the Scottish Government to ensure that we make progress. I, like everyone, would have liked things to have happened sooner than they have done. We are obviously still some way off in relation to what the investment results will provide and the timescale for that, but I reassure him that support and funding for the purchase is available in the 2025-26 budget.
The Scottish Government’s ears must have been burning this morning, because the front page of the Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald is on precisely that issue, with the headline of “Missing: have you seen our ferries?”. It does not really matter who owns the port, because this Government promised to upgrade it seven years ago. In fact, the former First Minister himself, Humza Yousaf, promised to upgrade it. Irrespective of the negotiations with Peel Ports, why does the Government not just get on with what it promised?
It is clear that ownership of the port does matter. Jamie Greene will be aware that it was his party that privatised ports some time ago. He will also be aware of the subsidy control measures that, again, were brought in by his Government and which restrict the amount and percentage of funds that are required. He will know that the deterioration of the port will require more funding than was originally proposed.
The on-going discussions will, I hope, reach a conclusion sooner rather than later, but I cannot give a date for that. However, I can reassure Jamie Greene that I treat the issue as a priority, as I have always done as Minister for Transport and now Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Breaking a logjam to allow investment is something that I hope he will welcome and vote for.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement today. As she is well aware, it was agreed seven years ago that Ardrossan would continue as the main port to Arran, and it has been clear for a number of years that Peel Ports, as the owner, seems to be the obstacle. Labour in North Ayrshire has been calling for municipal ownership or a form of public ownership in order to break the logjam.
Has the cabinet secretary now come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to conclude a deal with Peel, or is she continuing to consider that?
I can reassure Katy Clark that discussions have been conducted in good faith, which is required. As she will understand, discussions on purchase can take place only with two willing partners, and I am pleased that there are on-going discussions in good faith. I had asked my officials to initiate those discussions to ensure that we had a different option from one that was, for the legal reasons that I set out, becoming increasingly complex and difficult.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity, should negotiations result in a successful conclusion, to purchase the port. As I have clearly set out, the funding for that is available in the 2025-26 budget, and I would encourage Katy Clark to support that.
Dairy Sector (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to support the Scottish dairy sector. (S6O-04319)
The Scottish Government supports the Scottish dairy sector and Scottish agriculture, and will continue to do so. Last year alone, we paid out £414.8 million through the basic payment scheme and the greening and young farmers payments schemes, with a total of just under £34 million in payments that were made specifically to dairy farmers.
We have also provided grant funding for the Scottish dairy growth board to promote growth in the sector since its formation in 2014; that includes £85,000 of grant funding in this financial year. In addition, we continue to fund the Scottish Dairy Hub—including with £50,000 this year—which offers free advice and information to Scotland’s dairy farmers.
The minister is clearly not doing enough because, over the past decade, the Scottish milking herd has decreased by 24 per cent, according to the Scottish Dairy Cattle Association. My region of South Scotland saw the biggest decrease, with Ayrshire and then Dumfriesshire being the worst-affected areas, as a result of increased costs, more complex red tape and now a cruel family-farm tax that has been imposed by the United Kingdom Labour Government.
How does the Government intend to further support dairy farmers? Will it look at helping to support new routes to market and increase domestic processing capacity to provide a long-term future for this vitally important sector?
I absolutely dispute Craig Hoy’s point that we are not doing enough, and his point on numbers, as the fact is that dairy cow numbers actually went up last year.
With regard to the support that the Scottish Government provides, the Scottish dairy growth board was set up by Scottish ministers in support of the necessary co-ordination and collaboration that would be required to implement the dairy sector growth strategy, “Ambition 2025”.
There are a number of other issues that I will not take up time to cover just now, but I am happy to write to Craig Hoy to give him details of what those are. We are actively supporting the dairy sector in Scotland right now.
Shetland has only two dairy herds left that supply local milk. Additional milk supplies are imported and, when the ferry does not run, there is increased demand for local milk. With fluctuating demand, and given the challenges of the island dairy sector, how can the Scottish Government support dairy businesses to ensure that local milk will still be available?
As I said to Craig Hoy, the Scottish Government is undertaking a number of initiatives to continue to support dairy production. I understand the particular difficulties that exist in Shetland, and I am happy to have a conversation with Beatrice Wishart as to what more we can do to help in that regard.
Inheritance Tax (Farmers)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it can take to challenge the United Kingdom Government’s inheritance tax changes for farmers. (S6O-04320)
We have raised the issue with the United Kingdom Government on a number of occasions, most recently in a letter of 6 February to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and we will continue to engage with it in that regard.
Our position remains that the changes to inheritance tax should be paused and an immediate review carried out. The UK Government must also urgently commit to undertake and publish full impact assessments on the impacts that the changes are making in Scotland. The issue demonstrates yet again that it would be far better to have inheritance tax devolved to the Parliament in Scotland.
Farming families are not just in our rural communities—they are our rural communities, and no more so than in Mid Scotland and Fife, where farms of all sizes contribute hugely to economic stability and sustain communities the length and breadth of the region.
A delegation from the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Country Land and Business Association met the UK Government this week. A member of the delegation described the response of ministers as
“deaf to what we were trying to say”,
and added:
“I think we all came out slightly with boiling blood about it.”
How can the Scottish Government get a different outcome to its negotiations? Does the minister believe that the UK Government is deaf to the concerns of our rural communities?
I absolutely agree with everything that Roz McCall has said. We can continue to put on the pressure, but the absolute best result that we could get would be for Scotland to be an independent country so that we could make such decisions in Scotland.
Would it not be just as well to ask the Scottish Government to control the weather or the tide? Is it not the case that taxation is clearly reserved to Westminster under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which is a situation that the Scottish National Party has sought to fix, while Labour and the Tories have ignored it? Does the minister agree that, given the facts, the question is in bad faith, with the unionist parties pretending to champion rural Scotland, while Westminster neglects our farmers?
We will take every opportunity that we can to challenge the UK Government’s inheritance tax changes. We have consistently said that further tax powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, particularly when we have situations such as this. I absolutely agree with what George Adam has said. Scotland should be an independent country so that we can make those decisions here.
James Dornan joins us remotely.
Food and Drink Sector (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is working to support Scotland’s food and drink sector, both domestically and internationally. (S6O-04321)
Scotland’s food and drink sector is a £15 billion industry that is revered not just at home but the world over. Just last week, we sponsored the prestigious Michelin awards in Glasgow, where Scotland was able to showcase the very best of the sector to an international audience at the Kelvingrove art gallery and museum. More generally, we provided more than £10 million between 2023 and 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 towards the Scotland food and drink export plan to help to exploit the most significant opportunities for Scotland.
According to January’s trade modelling report, Scottish exports could be decreased by 7.2 per cent, or £3 billion, compared with under continued European Union membership, with the agrifood sector hardest hit. Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will was not only an affront to democracy; it has been hugely damaging to the economy and jobs. What data and modelling does the Scottish Government possess on the most recent impacts on Scotland’s food and drink sectors of Brexit and Labour’s lack of urgency to make any effort to fix it?
We continue to monitor and gather the data. As James Dornan has outlined, the food and drink sector has undoubtedly borne the brunt of Brexit, because it has disrupted our supply chains and created new trade barriers, and it has driven up food prices, which we have all seen.
There has also been a wider impact. For example, the value of our food imports from the EU has fallen by 13 per cent from 2019. Fruit and vegetable imports are down 51 per cent, and fish and seafood imports are down 67 per cent. The impact has also gone the other way in relation to our exports, with a 45 per cent fall in the value of our fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2023.
Notwithstanding all that, we continue to do all that we can to support our wider food and drink sector, because it is such an important linchpin for our economy. We will continue to support it into the future.
I will take a couple of supplementary questions, but they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
Dairy is a major contributor to the food and drink industry. The dairy sector must not be compromised; it must be able to grow and to deliver food security and net zero. There is an area in Dumfries and Galloway that has the biggest potential in the world to produce net zero milk with no embedded water. Whatever the decision on the national park will be, will the minister protect south-west dairy farming as a national asset?
Absolutely. I agree with Finlay Carson on that. We are agreeing with the Tories on quite a number of points today, especially in recognition of the importance of our dairy sector in the south of Scotland.
Finlay Carson will be aware that the consultation on the national park closed on 14 February. We will analyse the results of that and look at it quite closely. Right from the start, I have always been keen to emphasise that, if a proposal were to go ahead, it must recognise the nature that is so unique to Galloway, which is so important for agriculture in our country. I offer Finlay Carson the assurance that we recognise the importance of our dairy sector, and particularly how important it is in the south of Scotland.
We have strayed a little from the substantive question. Let us see whether we can get back.
According to NatureScot, an objective of deer management is to provide
“a valuable and sustainable food source”.
It is therefore welcome news that, on Jura, Argyll and Bute Council has announced a new initiative to put wild venison on the school menu. What action is the Scottish Government taking to normalise the consumption of venison in Scotland and to bring to Scotland’s food supply chain more of the culled deer?
Please be as brief as possible, cabinet secretary.
Mercedes Villalba has raised an important point. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is actively working on that, because we know that we can do more. We have a venison strategy in place, and we are always looking at how we can enhance and increase the domestic consumption of venison.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice. We all want there to be factual and correct records in the Official Report. Jim Fairlie stated that Scottish dairy numbers have risen, but my colleague Craig Hoy said in good faith that the Scottish Dairy Cattle Association has said that, over the past 10 years, those numbers have fallen by 24 per cent. Through the Official Report, could the minister make reference to the figures that he is talking about, so that we can all support the dairy industry?
Thank you, Ms Hamilton, but I think that you know that that is not a point of order. You have made your point but you have reduced the time that is available for questions on the next portfolio, which is health and social care. We will have a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change.
Health and Social Care
The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is an awful lot of interest in asking supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in both those and the responses.
“Disclosure: Kids on the Psychiatric Ward”
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent programme, “Disclosure: Kids on the Psychiatric Ward”, which features Skye house in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S6O-04322)
The care and treatment of young people as described in the programme are completely and wholly unacceptable. When our most vulnerable and unwell young people come forward and ask for help for their mental health, we owe them the highest standard of care and compassion. The accounts that were given by those brave young people and their families were truly harrowing. We must do everything that we can to ensure that patients are treated with the care and respect that they deserve.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has given an assurance that standards have improved significantly since the events that were described. It has initiated internal and external reviews to ensure the quality of care.
At the national level, I have asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland to conduct joint visits to all adolescent and child in-patient units, to provide further assurance and to make recommendations for improvements and future scrutiny.
Over the past few months, I have been working with a family regarding their daughter, Harmony. The family told me that their daughter was illegally sectioned and brought to Skye house on 17 October 2022.
Harmony was given the wrong dosage of medication. She was restrained, taken from her family—who were managing her mental health concerns—and put into Skye house, where she was subjected to abuse and neglectful care. The abuse and cruelty that were shown in the documentary lay bare the institutional crisis at Skye house. Those young women were children—children who needed our care and support.
Harmony’s parents have not stopped fighting for their daughter, acting to correct her medical records and challenging those who have failed to care for her. They attempted several times to contact the Scottish Government—including the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, and the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd—to make it aware of what was happening at Skye house.
Why has the Government—I am looking at both the cabinet secretary and the minister—ignored the family? Will the cabinet secretary respond to the letter that I sent requesting a meeting with the family? Will the Scottish Government step in to ensure that such abuse and neglect will never happen again at such an establishment?
On all those questions, I can assure Meghan Gallacher that the family will receive an answer to the latest request. The family have had numerous responses from the Government. The latest response is sitting on my desk, and I am content to release it as soon as possible after we speak.
I am certainly content to meet the family. They will understand that it is very difficult for me to intervene in individual cases, but in this case, it is very important that I meet the family and hear their experience in order to shape improvements in the service.
I have a number of supplementaries. I will try to get them all in, but I will need to be spared some of the preamble; I ask members to limit themselves to a question.
The experiences of the brave young people who told their stories in the “Disclosure” programme must be taken seriously, and they should be commended for coming forward.
What conversations are taking place among the Scottish Government, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland to ensure a thorough investigation of the incidents and to provide reassurance and closure to the young people and families affected?
As I have said, like everyone in the chamber, I was absolutely shocked at what I saw in the programme. It was a difficult watch, and I put on record my sincere thanks to the young people and their family members for having the courage to come forward.
Since I was made aware of the allegations in the programme, my officials have been in regular contact with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to seek assurances about current practice and governance. We have received answers to our questions, and we welcome the reviews that it is taking forward. I will monitor the outcome of those reviews closely and, as the board would expect, I will hold it to account. To that end, the cabinet secretary and I will meet NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde as soon as possible to seek direct assurance. We will also meet NHS Lothian and NHS Tayside, which host the other two adolescent units in Scotland.
If you will indulge me, Deputy Presiding Officer, there is so much interest in the issue that I would like to say a little bit more. As the minister, I want to be assured that standards are high across all our in-patient units. That is why I have asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission to carry out a series of joint visits to all adolescent in-patient units in Scotland, as well as to the national child in-patient unit. HIS and the commission will use those visits to make recommendations on what is required to ensure the quality and safety of our child and adolescent mental health services in-patient units, both now and into the future.
Stobhill hospital has half of all the child and adolescent mental health beds in the country. It is of national importance, and I welcome the direct oversight that the minister has indicated.
In the documentary, serious allegations were made regarding the routine overuse of intramuscular injections as a way of managing at-risk children. In one case, a young person was restrained 27 times and forcibly injected 37 times in the space of just one month. Will the minister investigate that specific allegation and establish how typical such practice is?
Absolutely. I assure Paul Sweeney that we will look at all the issues that were raised in the programme and seek assurances that there is improvement and that the highest quality of practice is being conducted in our in-patient services.
I welcome what the minister said about oversight, but one of the most troubling revelations in the “Disclosure” documentary was that the Mental Welfare Commission had already visited Skye house on no fewer than six occasions, five of which were announced visits. One of the aspects of concern to Parliament is the fact that the Mental Welfare Commission was not aware of its reach and clearly was not catching the behaviours that were revealed. What more can the Government do to further empower the Mental Welfare Commission so that such things cannot happen again?
The cabinet secretary and I are meeting both organisations. We are keen to work with them to improve the quality of inspection and scrutiny. Last year, we had a review of inspection and scrutiny, which gave us an indication of some of the improvements that are required in the mental health system as a whole. I will be focused on ensuring that the improvements in child and adolescent mental health services, which are clearly needed, happen as a result of our interventions.
Prescription of Medicinal Cannabis
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to encourage the prescription of medicinal cannabis on the national health service for the relief of chronic pain. (S6O-04323)
Before I start, I recognise the work that Pauline McNeill has carried out in this area.
No cannabis-based products for medicinal use are licensed in the United Kingdom for the treatment of chronic pain, and any prescribing decisions would be for clinicians to make. The evidence base for cannabis-based products for medicinal use in the treatment of chronic pain is very limited, combined with consistent evidence of adverse effects and/or harms.
I remain very close to this area and continue to engage closely with UK Government ministers on the establishment of trials for cannabis-based products for medicinal use.
Certain cannabis medicines have been legal since 2018, but Bedrolite is not yet licensed. Bedrolite has been a lifesaver, particularly for children with severe types of epilepsy, but if it is not licensed, the NHS will not fund it. A small number of exceptions have been made in England and Northern Ireland for children with conditions for which Bedrolite has been made available. In view of that, why is it impossible to organise cannabis medicine for complex epilepsy through the NHS in Scotland, when it is clear that that has happened in other parts of the UK?
I refer to a positive meeting that I had with Pauline McNeill in her capacity as co-convener of the cross-party group on medical cannabis, along with Tess White. Ms McNeill is correct that there are three cannabis-based products for medicinal use available on the NHS in Scotland to treat specific conditions. As a result of the meeting that I had with her and Ms White, we wrote to the UK Government to see whether we could extend the trials. I have had a response back, which I believe that I shared with Ms McNeill. It is an area that I am keeping a close eye on and I will continue to have communications with our chief pharmaceutical officer.
Spinal Muscular Atrophy Screening
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on using the blood spot test given to newborn babies to screen for spinal muscular atrophy to support early diagnosis and effective treatment of babies born with the condition. (S6O-04324)
Scotland’s screening policy relies on recommendations made by the UK National Screening Committee, an independent scientific body that provides advice on screening policy to all four United Kingdom nations. To date, the National Screening Committee has not recommended spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, screening through the existing blood spot test. However, I am aware that the committee is currently considering the matter. I hope that Mr Doris can rest assured that we are following developments closely, and that we, along with the organisations that are responsible for screening, are already considering how to implement SMA screening as quickly and effectively as possible should a recommendation be made.
Had my constituent, Baby Grace, been screened for SMA at birth, early treatment would have been transformational. Delayed diagnosis and treatment drastically reduce the beneficial impact of treatment. Consequently, Grace will now have substantial lifelong care needs. It did not have to be that way. The cabinet secretary previously told me that the focus is to plan for SMA screening so that we can act when the time is right. Given that the benefits of screening for SMA are both transformational and crystal clear, and that it appears to be a case of when and not if that will happen—despite the sluggish pace of the UK National Screening Committee, which I am dissatisfied with—when can we just get on with screening and change the lives of babies like my constituent young Grace?
My heart goes out to Baby Grace and her family, and to other families in a similar situation. I absolutely understand the benefits of early diagnosis. I take on board the points that Mr Doris has made, and I know that he has met with the cabinet secretary, who would be happy—as would I—to meet with him again. I am content to write to the NSC to understand the timeline for when its decisions will be made, which I appreciate is cold comfort to families who are already in this situation. I can confirm that all four UK chief medical officers are aware of the NSC’s plans and rationale for the review. I emphasise again that we are moving towards a way forward for implementation if the NSC makes that determination.
I welcome the minister’s comments, but rather than following developments and asking for timelines, what engagement will ministers have with the UK National Screening Committee to ensure that SMA screening is agreed?
That is an engagement that we are continuing to have, both through the cabinet secretary and through me.
Neurodevelopmental and Speech and Language Therapy Assessments
To ask the Scottish Government what the current average waiting times are for a neurodevelopmental assessment and a speech and language therapy assessment for children and young people in NHS Lanarkshire and in Scotland as a whole. (S6O-04325)
We do not currently collect waiting times data for neurodevelopmental assessments or for speech and language therapy. I recognise that neurodevelopmental assessment can be useful, but our primary focus is on improving the support that is available for children, young people and their families. I expect the national health service and children’s services to work together to implement the 2021 neurodevelopmental specification standards, which align with our getting it right for every child approach. Those standards highlight that support for children and young people should be made available on the basis of need, regardless of a formal diagnosis. Long waits for neurodevelopmental support are unacceptable.
I urge the minister to take a look at the waiting times. This time last year, the then First Minister told members in the chamber that he would personally look into the case of Cody Morrow, a then three-year-old from Bellshill, who has spent his short life waiting for NHS assessment and treatment. Cody is another year into his now four-year wait for a neurological development assessment. His mum is physically and mentally exhausted and she does not know where to turn. Why does four-year-old Cody need to wait until he is seven not to begin treatment, but just to get an assessment?
I absolutely appreciate the value of assessment and we are keen to explore that further as part of the system improvement, but many children and young people who present looking for assessment do not meet diagnostic criteria for a neurodevelopmental condition, although they would still benefit from support. Also, their needs change over time. In line with GIRFEC, we believe that the focus should be on identifying needs and ensuring that children, young people and their families receive the support and the appropriate adjustments that they require.
It is vital that every child has the best possible start in life and that any developmental concerns are identified early. Will the minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support families and young people to ensure that assessment times are reduced?
I agree with my colleague that it is vital that children receive support for any neurodevelopmental concerns as soon as possible. That is why our national neurodevelopmental specification places on NHS and children’s services an expectation that they will work together to provide the support that children and families require at the point at which they need it and not be dependent on a formal diagnosis. That support might include assessment, diagnosis or other interventions.
Fife Health and Social Care Partnership
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the director of the Fife health and social care partnership, and what was discussed. (S6O-04326)
Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives from health and social care partnerships, including the one in Fife. I met Lynne Garvey, Fife HSCP’s director of health and social care, when I visited the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline this morning to see its front-line discharge-to-assess work, which the British Red Cross is supporting.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I have written to him on the serious matters arising in the Sandie Peggie case, and I await his detailed response. This afternoon, I want to ask about another serious matter.
Given the projected overspend on the part of Fife health and social care partnership of at least £34.8 million, with significant cuts to vital services being planned, is the cabinet secretary confident that internal control systems in the partnership and in NHS Fife are robust and reliable? If so, on what basis is he confident about that? Where does he expect NHS Fife to find the £21 million or so to bail out the partnership, given that NHS Fife itself is reportedly in the red to the tune of £55 million?
I am aware that the partnership has agreed a recovery plan and I understand that an agreement might be implemented requiring the remaining overspend to be funded by NHS Fife and Fife Council. The Scottish Government regularly meets NHS Fife to discuss the board’s financial performance, including in monthly conversations to discuss forecasts and risks. NHS Fife has outlined its continued efforts to deliver recurrent savings and to work in collaboration with its partnerships to reduce the projected overspend. I will be meeting the leader of Fife Council and the chair of the Fife integration joint board to discuss pressures, good practice and transformational change.
I have a number of requests for supplementaries. I will try to get in as many of them as possible. It would be helpful if they were as brief as possible.
When the cabinet secretary meets Fife health and social care partnership, will he ask it to assure him that it is complying with the law in relation to the provision of single-sex facilities for its female members of staff?
Obviously, I expect all public bodies to comply with the law to ensure that the rights of all their staff members are being complied with.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the cuts to services by Fife health and social care partnership, which is partially funded by NHS Fife. Given that NHS Fife is spending astronomical sums of money on a dismissal case involving a staff member who raised concerns about basic rights to a single-sex changing facility, what will the cabinet secretary do to ensure that financial mismanagement does not affect care for residents in Fife?
Clearly, we work with NHS Fife and the health and social care partnership, as we do with health boards across the country, to make sure that the resource that we are committing—it is £21.7 billion in the budget for the next financial year—addresses the issues that we face in the health service and results in improvements. I expect all boards to come forward with plans in that regard.
This morning, the cabinet secretary said that he could not comment on the Sandie Peggie case because it is a live employment tribunal but, in the same interview, he went on to say that he has full confidence in the board of NHS Fife, which is the other party in the employment tribunal. Can Neil Gray tell us why he is backing the bureaucrats on the board and not a nurse with 30 years’ service to the NHS?
I am not going to provide any further comment on a live tribunal process. It is important that we support the work of NHS Fife in delivering for the citizens of Fife and improving its health and social care services.
The cabinet secretary has a legal duty to uphold the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. In June 2024, he received a letter from Sandie Peggie’s solicitor, Miss Gribbon, highlighting issues in connection with her case. I repeat that the cabinet secretary has a legal duty to uphold those protections. Did he at any time challenge NHS Fife’s actions and seek assurances of full compliance with the law?
The correspondence that Stephen Kerr refers to was responded to by officials, who gave guidance as to the measures that could be taken. I am not going to comment further on a live tribunal case. It is important that that process is allowed to conclude and that the due process is allowed to continue.
When will the Scottish Government bring forward a full debate on the provision of safe spaces for women, especially those who are required to disrobe in connection with their work, such as health employees?
I have already set out that I expect all public bodies, including health boards, to comply with legislation and the guidance that is in place to ensure that all employees can safely go about their work and do so in a way that meets their needs.
University Hospital Wishaw
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting front-line staff at University hospital Wishaw. (S6O-04327)
The Scottish Government is supporting front-line staff throughout the health service through funding of more than £2.5 million annually to support front-line staff wellbeing. That funding provides our workforce with access to psychological interventions and therapies; self-service resources through the national wellbeing hub; and the national wellbeing helpline, which is delivered by NHS 24. Registered staff also have access to confidential mental health services through the workforce specialist service. In addition, the national wellbeing hub offers a range of self-care wellbeing resources and signposting to relevant mental health and support services.
We are aware of the challenges that front-line staff are experiencing and we will continue collaborating with leaders and staff in health and social care and social work to identify and address areas of stress and to explore additional actions to support staff.
I have been helping constituents who face delays when they are transported by ambulance to University hospital Wishaw. In one case, a patient waited outside the hospital for seven hours, but the consultant and specialist who they were due to see was at Monklands hospital that evening. I recognise the immense pressure and pay tribute to our health workers, but can the cabinet secretary confirm that ambulance dispatchers are co-ordinating with local Lanarkshire hospitals to avoid unnecessary delays? Will the Scottish Government work with NHS Lanarkshire to review co-ordination between services to ensure that patients are delivered to hospitals on a capacity basis in the first instance?
I am sorry to hear about the experience of Clare Adamson’s constituent. The Scottish Ambulance Service works closely with boards to ensure that patients are transported to the appropriate hospital for their needs. Hospital ambulance liaison officers are instrumental in helping the flow of patients in hospital and minimising the impact of handover delays.
Although we recognise that some patients need ambulances for patient transport for clinical reasons, we are considering other solutions, including working with community transport providers and initiatives such as call before convey services to ensure that the Ambulance Service responds to those who have the greatest clinical need and that delays at accident and emergency departments are minimised.
Question 7 was not lodged.
Long Covid
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to support people with long Covid. (S6O-04329)
The 2025-26 budget includes new investment of £4.5 million to deliver new specialist support across the country for long Covid, ME, chronic fatigue and other similar conditions. Additionally, we have commissioned NHS National Services Scotland to operate a long Covid strategic network, which is delivering a programme of virtual educational sessions that are targeted at general practitioners working in Scotland. Those sessions will look at topics including speech and language issues and vocational rehabilitation.
I know that the minister is aware of my constituent Tracy McMullen and the healthcare support provided to her son Jonathan, who is suffering from long Covid. I thank the minister for her recent response to my letter, but I am advised by Mrs McMullen that there have been no major improvements in Jonathan’s case and that persistent symptoms continue to significantly affect both him and his family. The £4.5 million that is contained in the draft budget for specialist support for long Covid is very welcome, but can the minister outline how she thinks that it can be used by health boards to bring tangible benefits to Jonathan and others who are in his situation?
I am very sorry to hear of the difficulties that Jonathan and his family continue to experience. I absolutely recognise the role that Mr MacGregor has played in advocating on their behalf.
Listening to those who are living with such conditions is key, and my officials are doing that as part of their on-going work to determine how to allocate the additional £4.5 million that has been announced in the draft budget to deliver new specialist support services across the country for long Covid, ME, chronic fatigue and other similar conditions. Allocation of that resource is subject to the passage of the budget bill, and we continue to ask the Parliament to unite behind the budget so that the funding reaches the people who need it most.
I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in asking supplementaries, but unfortunately we have already gone beyond the allocated time and we need to move on.
That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before the next item of business to allow front-bench members to change positions.
Air adhart
The Promise (Third Oversight Board Report)