Official Report 972KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. As ever, I would appreciate succinct questions and answers to match, in order to get as many members in as possible.
Cattle Levels (Impact on Beef Supply)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported concerns by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers that falling cattle levels are leading to a reduction in beef supplies, and that gaps could subsequently appear in the red meat sections of supermarkets. (S6O-04218)
The Scottish Government maintains strong support for the Scottish beef industry through the £40 million that is paid annually to beef producers through the Scottish suckler beef support scheme. The Scottish Government’s support package for livestock farmers is the most tailored in the United Kingdom and includes voluntary coupled support for beef production and support for less favoured areas. We will continue to work with the sector, including by meeting the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers and Quality Meat Scotland, to consider how to meet the challenges that are affecting it.
The minister’s answer is at odds with what the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers has said. Scott Walker, who is from that organisation, said that some of the blame lies with the minister’s own Government. These are Scott Walker’s words:
“Over the years, the Scottish Government has gradually discouraged livestock production as they see it as a problem for the environment ... They have led this view that the cow is bad for the environment.”
Is that criticism of the Scottish Government not correct?
Absolutely not. Under no circumstances is that correct, and Scott Walker is entirely wrong. The Scottish Government’s policy has not been—and is not—to reduce cow numbers. With the Scottish suckler support scheme, we are ensuring that suckler cows stay on the land and encouraging them to produce calves more timeously.
I gently remind Douglas Ross that it was he who asked the Scottish Government to join the UK Government’s UK-wide agriculture policy, which is part of the problem.
Rubbish. Just answer the question.
It is sucking cattle out of Scotland into the UK, which is having a direct effect on meat wholesalers in Scotland because—
Listen to what Scott Walker is saying.
Mr Ross.
Store cattle are being sucked out of Scotland. As long as the suckler herd is declining in England, store cattle will be taken out of Scotland. That is adding to the problems for meat wholesalers in Scotland.
Thank you, minister.
It is not me who is saying this—it is Scott Walker. Listen to what the industry is saying.
Douglas Ross needs to understand those facts before he comes and asks—
Thank you, minister. Members, I will say at this juncture that I am not having shouting across the chamber—I am just not having it. We need to make progress with this portfolio questions session.
Last month, the Parliament passed legislation to restrict calving intervals to 410 days to qualify for support, having been reassured by the minister that the force majeure clause would deal with issues such as weather and ferry cancellations. However, the Scottish Government guidance remains unchanged and quotes circumstances such as severe natural disasters to qualify. The minister will be aware that ferry cancellations are all too common, and the news that CalMac Ferries has said that it can no longer carry livestock on ferry journeys lasting more than three hours without a transport authorisation licence will simply make matters worse.
Will the minister now put on record the circumstances in which force majeure will come into play, giving my constituents the reassurance that they require to stay in the cattle industry?
I cannot give all the circumstances in which force majeure will come into play, because they could be many and varied, and decisions will have to be based on individual circumstances. I give the member my reassurance again that the aim is to make the process as simple as possible for the producers so that we can ensure that they are not unduly damaged in circumstances that are beyond their control. I have given that assurance before and I will continue to give it. However, the restriction to 410 days is proof positive that the Government is taking action, alongside the industry, to reduce emissions from and criticism of the sector. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that we support the sector.
I share the concerns expressed in the member’s question.
Will the minister explain how the cumulative impact of trade deals that deliver nothing to the primary producer, together with the uncertainty about future levels of funding and the potential threats to Scotland’s future support schemes posed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 1998 and the Subsidy Control Act 2022—all of which was presided over by Douglas Ross’s party and which he supported—have exacerbated the very issues that Douglas Ross brings to the chamber today?
I absolutely accept Elena Whitham’s point. The initial post-Brexit trade deals that the previous United Kingdom Government agreed have not benefited Scottish agriculture in any way, shape or form. The economic impact assessments have identified agriculture and semi-processed food as the losing sectors in the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. The Conservatives celebrated those deals.
The previous UK Government also took the decision to reduce our seven-year European Union common agricultural policy budgets to yearly allocations from His Majesty’s Treasury. That lack of financial certainty and the fact that new trade barriers with the EU far outweigh the expected gains from other trade agreements again demonstrates that Scotland’s trade and interests would have been best served by remaining in the EU.
Arran Ferry Service Relocation
To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross-government co-ordination on islands, including island connectivity, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the impact on islanders of the relocation of the Arran ferry service from Ardrossan to Troon. (S6O-04219)
The main Arran services are operating solely to Troon until 28 March. CalMac Ferries will run services from Ardrossan and Troon to Brodick during the summer season, with the published timetables, I hope, reflecting that.
Transport Scotland has been engaged in the Ardrossan harbour business case review and with considering the benefits of retaining and enhancing services from Ardrossan. It updates ministers regularly. The review has had input from the Isle of Arran ferry committee and from North Ayrshire Council on local economic impacts. Further updates on the business case review are expected soon.
I thank the minister for his update. The lives of many residents on Arran are as deeply rooted in Ardrossan as they are on the island. That is where they access education, health services and the third sector, and many will work in and around the Ardrossan area. The problem is that the ferry does not go there. What island impact assessment was carried out by public bodies on the move of the ferry service—albeit temporarily, we hope—to Troon? What is being done right now to ensure that islanders enjoy the same access to public services as anyone else following that move?
The member is more aware than most people of the reasons why everything has moved to Troon. I confirm that the business case development includes an assessment, which was undertaken by North Ayrshire Council, on what the socioeconomic impact will be.
The winter timetable is under way and the ships that we have are currently sailing to Troon. That is the position that we are in.
As we know from the Tories’ disastrous privatisation of Ardrossan harbour in 1992, the consequences of poor decisions can be felt for decades.
A Peter Brett Associates study comparing the costs of Brodick’s ferry going to Ardrossan with its going to Troon found that Troon would be 4.9 times more expensive over a 30-year period. Will the minister impress on colleagues the necessity of making Arran’s ferry service fit for the future by redeveloping Ardrossan harbour?
The member has been engaged on the issue and he knows that the Government is well aware of the Troon and Ardrossan issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, and she is well aware of the issues. We will continue to have those conversations about the importance of Ardrossan.
When will the next meeting of the Ardrossan harbour task force take place? When will the long-overdue business case for Ardrossan harbour redevelopment be published?
As far as the exact dates are concerned, I would have to get our officials to write to the member with that information.
Brexit (Impact on Rural Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what its latest assessment is of the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s rural economy. (S6O-04220)
Mairi Gougeon joins us remotely.
Brexit continues to impact negatively on Scotland’s rural and island areas. We no longer have multiyear certainty of funding for agriculture and rural development that we previously used to enjoy when we were members of the European Union.
Brexit has also resulted in trade deals that we know have disadvantaged our agrifood sector, and it has made recruitment of employees more difficult, disrupted supply chains and created new trade barriers for our rural and island economy. I am sad to say that rural businesses and communities are continuing to pay a heavy economic price for a Brexit that they did not vote for.
Tory Brexit has had a detrimental effect on people and businesses throughout rural Scotland. Unfortunately, the Labour United Kingdom Government is continuing the economic vandalism of Brexit. Does the Scottish Government possess data on the cumulative impact of Brexit on rural Scotland across the five years since it occurred?
Certainly, we have some information on that. However, first and foremost is that the economic consequences of Brexit are still being realised. We know already that it has created new barriers to trade, which have had a significant financial impact on businesses. It has also driven up food price inflation, supply chain costs and, as I mentioned in my previous response, labour shortages.
Many Scottish food businesses are already suffering from lower exports to the EU. As a result of that, there was a 45 per cent fall in fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2023. As I also touched on in my initial response, our farmers and crofters are no longer benefiting from the multiyear EU funding that is vital for supporting long-term investment and planning.
Agricultural Support
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a farmer.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans for future agricultural support. (S6O-04221)
In June 2024, we updated the agricultural reform route map to set out the changes to agricultural support that will come in in 2025. That includes the start of the whole-farm plan, new protections for peatlands and wetlands, and a calving interval requirement for the Scottish suckler beef support scheme.
The route map will be updated again in the early part of this year, to set out the requirements that farmers and crofters will need to meet in 2026. It will set out the support that will be on offer to help them to meet those requirements.
In July 2024, I received a letter—as did all farmers—that told us that we had to prepare for the future of agricultural support by getting our whole-farm plans in order. Then, in December, in order to make that support happen, the minister had to put in place the Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024—which were secretly withdrawn only a couple of weeks later, due, I think, to a legal error.
What confidence can the industry have in the Government if it cannot even get its own stuff right?
The answer to that question is that there was a legal drafting error. It was nothing more than that. There was no change to the policy, and we will continue to update the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee as we bring new regulations forward.
It’s a disgrace!
Ssh.
Mr Doris, I am in charge of doing the shushing in the chamber, thank you.
Water Management Support
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what funding will be available in the next financial year to support farmers to address water management issues impacting on agricultural land. (S6O-04222)
Improving resilience to flooding is an absolute priority for the Scottish Government. There have been regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about supporting flood management, including through issues relating to agricultural land.
The Scottish Government’s national flood resilience strategy, which was published in December last year, makes it clear that, through our agricultural reform programme, we are considering how farmers can be supported to make changes to handle extremes in water availability.
The Scottish Government is also developing a flood recovery framework to provide greater clarity and coherence about flood recovery responsibilities, and to support and help communities and businesses to recover from flooding.
I have been trying to help the victims of flooding in Cupar and in other areas in my constituency along the River Eden. They are frustrated that, despite the publication of the flood resilience strategy, and despite talk about bringing farmers on board and working in partnership with them, the practical effect on the ground is that there is no change. The farmers have a disagreement about what best practice is, and there is very little financial support or real practical guidance to make a difference. When will we see an actual change, rather than more strategies and plans?
I absolutely take on board Willie Rennie’s point, and I get the frustration of the farming community, but there are differences of opinion: there are differences about whether we should be dredging, doing upstream mitigations or putting in walls. All sorts of discussions are going on. That is part of the wider process of making sure that we study the issue and get to an agreed position on how to manage the situation. However, that has to be done on a catchment basis—it cannot be done as a blanket approach across Scotland.
The issues that Mr Rennie is talking about along the Eden are specific to that catchment, and that is something that we need to discover. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities need to be part of the conversation on that, as does the farming community.
Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024
To ask the Scottish Government how the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 will aim to benefit the farming sector in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. (S6O-04223)
The 2024 act will allow for the realisation of our vision for agriculture. Ultimately, it is a positive vision that puts our food producers at its core and recognises the essential role that they have in relation to nature recovery and climate adaptation and mitigation. It enables the delivery of the four-tier framework, which values and rewards the actions of our producers in helping to help feed the nation and in stewarding our countryside.
Many people are already leading the way on that work, and they deserve praise for farming to produce food sustainably, in ways that actively benefit both nature and climate. The framework approach recognises that there will be a phased transition, and it provides flexibility to respond to any of the geopolitical, economic, climate and nature challenges that we might face in the future.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer.
From my previous questions, she will be aware of how highly we rate first-class local produce in my part of Ayrshire—namely, Dunlop cheese, Mossgiel and the Coo Shed milk, quality beef and lamb, Lochlea whisky, Irvine Valley gin, Ayrshire tatties and, not least, the famous Kilmarnock pie. How can we use the bill to encourage more local food and drink production? More important than that, how can we get all those products on to our shelves so that local people can buy them, and to help to sustain those vital local industries?
First of all, I absolutely recognise the passion that Willie Coffey has—quite rightly—for the products that are made in his local area.
We need to do what we can to make more of our own locally produced foods available more locally for people to buy. We are doing work on that in a couple of areas. First, we have committed £10 million since 2023 and over the course of this year to support the delivery of our food and drink strategy. That facilitates a range of activities and direct engagement with retailers to increase the volume of Scottish food and drink on retail shelves, and to promote provenance to customers.
Secondly, only earlier this month, a report on the Scottish Government-funded go local programme, which is delivered in partnership with the Scottish Grocers Federation, showed that there has been a 44 per cent increase in monthly sales of fresh and healthier Scottish products in participating stores. The programme uses shelf-edge labelling to promote products. That is an example of where the support that we provide to such schemes is vital in ensuring that we get local products out there.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of my interest in this topic. One of the things that we can do very quickly is improve our public procurement policy in order to get local produce into our schools and hospitals. What progress has the cabinet secretary been making on that?
Yes, absolutely. I am more than happy to follow that up with Brian Whittle to provide more detail. However, I have no doubt that he will be aware of the food for life programme. We have been looking to further expand that in a project area, working with the Soil Association Scotland, and I can provide the member with more information on that.
However, it is also important to point to the work that we are doing through the good food nation plan. Procurement was a key factor that we identified in the first draft of the plan, and we have undertaken a consultation on that. We are always keen to see what we can do to use the levers that are at our disposal. We recognise that procurement is quite challenging because of the different legislative requirements that we are working to, but I am more than happy to follow up that discussion with the member.
Bird Monitoring
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether NatureScot’s proposal to mandate advance written notification to landowners for schedule 1 bird monitoring could discourage the identification of raptor crimes on managed land. (S6O-04224)
I very much appreciate the value of the work that is done by the individuals who monitor raptor populations across Scotland. I had the great pleasure of going out to watch ospreys being rung and was struck by the very good relationship between the land managers and the people who were doing the raptor ringing.
NatureScot’s intention to introduce a condition to schedule 1 licences, requiring advance notice to landowners of visits to nests of highly protected species, is a reasonable and proportionate requirement. In fact, it is already set out as part of best practice guidance, and it is currently required in the national nature reserves. That requires the provision of advance notification of visits, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, which helps to build co-operation between landowners and raptor monitors. There is no reason to think that the measure will reduce the identification of wildlife crime.
I thank the minister for his answer, but I am slightly confused by it, because he said that the requirement is “reasonable and proportionate” but also talked about when it is “reasonably practicable”, so I am not quite sure which one it is.
A lot of the people who take part in the work are volunteers and might not know who the landowner is, and, in some cases, landowners and raptor protectors do not get on terribly well. In those cases, will that not make things more difficult for raptor protectors?
In many cases, contact details will be known by the licence holders and contact will be made, with the existing relations usually being very good. I emphasise the point that there should be notification when that is reasonably practicable. If the owner of the land cannot be found, the licence application should be made through NatureScot’s licensing division.
I echo John Mason’s concerns, which reflect concerns that I have heard from the Orkney raptor study group. It has made the same point about information being shared with landowners and difficulties in knowing who precisely owns land—a problem that the Orkney Native Wildlife Project has come up against, despite all the resources at its disposal. I encourage the minister to look again at the concerns that the raptor study groups have raised and consider how they can be better addressed to ensure that the monitoring that is going on can continue.
I take on board Mr McArthur’s point. That issue has been raised with me. However, it is proportionate and not unreasonable for people who live on, work on and deal with the land to know that those who are carrying out what would ordinarily be illegal practices on that land have a licence for that. I think that that is fair and proportionate.
However, on Mr McArthur’s point, if people do not know who the landowner is and cannot get contact details to provide notification, when it is reasonably practicable to do so, they can provide notification through NatureScot’s licensing division.
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what the three main aims of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are. (S6O-04225)
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will strengthen the rights of rural communities by giving them greater involvement in decisions about the land on which they live and work. It will better ensure that Scotland’s land is transferred and used in ways that take account of local need, which will improve opportunities for more diverse land ownership. The bill will also support the use of land for environmental purposes and modernise the legal framework for tenant farming and small landholdings to support the delivery of our vision for agriculture.
I remind members that I am a landowner in Moray and that I own 500 acres of arable land.
More than 16 people and organisations that have given evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee have said that the bill will not deliver the aims that the cabinet secretary has described. Just this week, the Scottish Land Commission published 20 pages of advice on part 1 of the bill, which highlight what it believes to be failures, and I am told that it might publish more advice. Is the cabinet secretary still content with the bill as it stands, or will it need significant reform?
I am sure that Edward Mountain appreciates that I am carefully listening to and considering the evidence that the committee is receiving. I expect that there will be amendments to the bill on the back of the evidence that the committee has heard. We are listening, and we will pay close attention to proposals that will strengthen and improve the bill to ensure that it achieves the aims that we have set out.
When the Scottish Government consulted on its proposals for land reform, we were told:
“The Bill will be ambitious. It will address long-standing concerns about the highly concentrated pattern of land ownership in rural areas of Scotland.”
However, the Government’s bill defines large landholdings as those of more than 3,000 hectares, which is nearly three and a half times the size of Glasgow city. Even then, that land will be subject to only a transfer test, not a public interest test. My proposed bill would have set a presumed limit of 500 hectares on sales and transfers and would have made transfers over that limit subject to a public interest test. With that in mind, is the cabinet secretary open to reducing the area of land that is defined as a large landholding in the Government’s bill?
I am sure that Mercedes Villalba will be aware that, although the 3,000-hectare threshold applies for some provisions, there is a 1,000-hectare threshold for others. I am more than happy to continue to engage with her and other members with an interest in the bill, bearing in mind the bill proposals that she had been working on.
Scotland needs a strong and dynamic relationship between its land and all its people. Therefore, our land reform journey needs to continue. Asking those with significant vested interests in the current patterns of land ownership to objectively consider the issues of land reform, the question of why it is necessary and the type of action that ought to be taken is like asking turkeys to vote for an early Christmas. How will the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill ensure that folk and communities throughout Scotland are empowered?
The bill is hugely important in that. To create a fairer, more equal and more socially just Scotland is a really important part of the Government’s aspirations. The bill will pass more power to people and local communities across Scotland, because it will encourage and support responsible and diverse land ownership, with communities having a say in how land in their area is used. All land in Scotland should contribute to a modern, sustainable and successful country, which is very much what we hope to achieve through the bill.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.
Health and Social Care
Given the time pressures across the afternoon, we will crack on with questions on the next portfolio, which is health and social care. Members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. We are tight for time, so brevity will be required in questions and responses.
Thrombectomy Services (Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase access to thrombectomies in the Fife region, in light of the reported 1.9 per cent increase in investment in the national thrombectomy service. (S6O-04226)
We have invested £38 million to date in a national thrombectomy service. Most national health service boards, including NHS Fife, can now refer to thrombectomy hubs, increasing geographical access to thrombectomy. We are also funding thrombectomy specialist nurse posts in spoke hospitals with high rates of ischaemic stroke, including NHS Fife, to ensure that people who would benefit from thrombectomy are promptly identified. Work is on-going to establish how the £16 million that was announced in the Scottish budget, once it has been scrutinised by the Parliament, can be best used to maximise the number of patients who are able to benefit from thrombectomy.
I thank the minister for that response, but it is clear that there is something of a postcode lottery when it comes to thrombectomy services. My Fife constituency relies on the Lothian thrombectomy service, which also serves Lothian and Dumfries and Galloway. Will the minister ensure that investment in the Lothian service rises so that there are not unacceptable delays and waiting times for my constituents?
The Scottish Government remains committed to expanding the national thrombectomy service and ensuring that access to that treatment is as equitable as possible. I had the pleasure of visiting NHS Lothian’s thrombectomy hub at the Edinburgh royal infirmary on 14 January and I was very impressed by the staff’s dedication and commitment to improving the care of those people who have experienced stroke. I found it an invaluable opportunity to learn at first hand about the east of Scotland thrombectomy service and to discuss service delivery, staffing levels and equity of access with the clinical and service management team.
We will continue to work with everyone who I have just mentioned in boards and regions, and with NHS national services, to expand access to thrombectomy.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a practising NHS general practitioner.
In my region—Glasgow, which is the largest city in Scotland—a person should only have a stroke on a Monday to Friday between 9 am and 5 pm, because that is the only time when anyone can get a thrombectomy. Let us contrast that with Edinburgh, where it is available seven days a week. There is significant inequality of access to life-changing and life-saving thrombectomy, and the situation is even worse for people who live in rural areas, where travelling by road is hit or miss. Warm words will not cut it. Will the Scottish Government commit to funding the nationwide, round-the-clock service that Scots deserve? What will it do to ensure that that is available to everyone?
I agree that we want to have the best 24-hour service that we can have, which is why we plan to invest an additional £16 million in thrombectomy services if the budget passes. We are working closely with stakeholders to understand why the current thrombectomy rates are lower than those that were predicted via modelling. We are also working with them to understand the needs in each area, because we must understand that it is not only about money, but also about the workforce.
Mental Health Services (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it remains committed to dedicating 10 per cent of front-line national health service spend to mental health and 1 per cent to child and adolescent mental health services. (S6O-04227)
We remain committed to delivery of the 10 per cent and 1 per cent spending targets for mental health services and CAMHS respectively. However, as we all know, there are continued and unprecedented challenges to the public finances. That means that, in practice, achieving the targets will depend on the outcome of future budgets. It is also dependent on the financial decisions that are taken by NHS boards and their partners on the continued local investment that is needed to achieve the targets. We will continue to closely monitor our progress towards the 10 per cent and 1 per cent targets over the remainder of the parliamentary session.
“Progress towards the targets” seems an interesting way of describing it when NHS funding for mental health has decreased to just 8.53 per cent, which represents a £238.5 million shortfall when adjusting for inflation. In the 2022-23 financial year, no health board achieved the Government’s 10 per cent spending target and only one board invested at least 1 per cent of its funding in CAMHS.
We have been hearing about the target since 2021, yet the share of the spend is actually going backwards. There is now just over a year of the parliamentary session left. Will the Government work with health boards to ensure that spend is suitably allocated to realise the commitment before the next election, or is it content to continue posturing instead of delivering on the target?
The member will be aware that we are working very closely with health boards on the target. We measure it using the Scottish health service costs book, which is published annually in arrears by Public Health Scotland. NHS mental health expenditure rose from £1.28 billion in 2021-22 to £1.3 billion in 2022-23—an increase of 25 per cent or 2 per cent in cash terms, representing 8.53 per cent of total NHS expenditure. Expenditure on CAMHS rose from £98 million to £114.8 million, which is a 17.2 per cent increase, representing 0.75 per cent of total NHS expenditure.
The trend in the proportion of spending has tended to be driven primarily by relatively more investment being made in other services. I assure the member that we are absolutely committed to delivering on our mental health priorities and on CAMHS, and we are seeing a massive improvement in CAMHS as a result of our investment.
I will call a couple of members to ask supplementary questions. They will need to be brief, as will the responses.
The Scottish Government has almost doubled direct investment in mental health services across Scotland since 2020-21. Will the minister outline how the Scottish Government will ensure that the crucial mental health funding in the 2025-26 budget will allow more community-based support for teenage mental health to be put in place?
The Scottish Government has invested in a range of community-based support and online resources, such as ifeel and Parent Club, to support the mental health and wellbeing of young people. In particular, since 2020, we have provided local authorities with more than £65 million to develop and deliver supports and services across Scotland that are focused on prevention and early intervention, promoting positive mental health and wellbeing, and tackling emotional distress. Where appropriate, those services offer an alternative to CAMHS by providing support in a community setting. That investment will continue with the baselining of that funding into the local authority general revenue grants in 2025-26.
We have also invested directly in our communities mental health and wellbeing fund, which I have spoken about in the chamber many times before.
Many solutions for poor mental health sit outside the health portfolio. They include community activities and inclusion, which, in many cases, third sector organisations are better placed to deliver. Does the minister not recognise that squeezing investment to councils, which fund those interventions, just heaps more and more pressure on statutory services such as CAMHS?
I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to reiterate yet again that we have invested £66 million in our communities mental health and wellbeing fund for adults since 2021. That fund is open to a wide range of projects including those that support young people aged 16 and over. Given the pressures on young people, I am really keen for that group to be given added focus in the future delivery of the fund.
Human Metapneumovirus
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to address the reported rise in cases of human metapneumovirus, or HMPV, and ensure that Scotland is prepared for any pandemic regarding this condition. (S6O-04228)
HMPV is just one of the respiratory viruses that Public Health Scotland routinely monitors through our national respiratory surveillance programmes. The latest data shows that the national incidence rate for HMPV remains at a low activity level overall and is normal for what we would expect at this time of year.
HMPV typically causes mild disease, and the current threat level is assessed as low. Public Health Scotland continues to monitor trends and indications of the severity of viruses or diseases such as HMPV, as well as other respiratory diseases, and any action that is taken as a result will be proportionate and based on evidence gathered.
Although it is not the same as Covid, there has reportedly been an increase in HMPV in the United Kingdom, which could have implications for overwhelming the national health service. The UK Covid inquiry showed that the Scottish Government was inadequately prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic and that there was not a sufficient level of urgency. Cabinet secretary, could you outline what steps the Government is taking—if Scotland were facing a looming pandemic tomorrow, for instance—to ensure that proper planning is put in place?
Speak through the chair, please.
We are working to ensure that the lessons identified from our policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic are put in place and that policy across Government can respond to the next pandemic. We therefore established a standing committee on pandemic preparedness, which published its full recommendations on 26 November last year, and the Government has accepted those recommendations in principle. We are committed to responding to both the UK and Scottish Covid-19 inquiries, and we have established governance arrangements within the Scottish Government to deliver a cross-Government programme of work to improve our pandemic preparedness, with ministerial oversight at the heart of that.
I recognise the steps that the cabinet secretary has described today, and I welcome the cross-Government approach. Is the Government monitoring the approach that has been taken on pandemic preparedness in other countries, which will help to promote understanding and ensure that Scotland gathers the best evidence base for developing its own future response?
Absolutely. In the interests of brevity, I will just say that we are monitoring that domestically, within the four nations’ responses—and we are considering how we can collaborate on that—as well as looking to international evidence.
Delayed Discharge (Highlands and Islands)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is dealing with delayed discharge from hospitals in the Highlands and Islands. (S6O-04229)
Since last June, the collaborative response and assurance group that I chair jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has met weekly with leaders from across the health and social care system, including leaders from Highland and Islands health and social care partnerships. Our most recent meeting took place on Monday. We have been working to support areas with high levels of delay, including in Highland, to understand their challenges and to support them to deliver the changes that will improve people’s journey from hospital to home or to the care setting that is right for them.
Our planned budget for 2025-26 includes investment of a further £200 million to reduce waiting list backlogs, improve capacity and remove barriers that keep some patients in hospital longer than necessary.
Since 2022, Highland Council has lost 161 care home places, due to eight care homes closing. On top of that, care at home has declined significantly, which increases delayed discharge. Last October, NHS Highland reported that it had to reduce delayed discharge by 65 per cent just to meet national targets. What interventions are being put in place that are specifically tailored to the Highlands and Islands to provide more care places and packages so as to meet that challenge?
I thank Rhoda Grant for raising the issue. As she will understand, Maree Todd and I are both heavily engaged with areas facing the most significant challenges regarding delayed discharge, as are senior and other officials across Government—and Highland is absolutely at the top of that engagement.
We have been working with people in the area on how we can support the whole system to respond, which includes providing support to maintain some care home provision that would otherwise have been put to closure. That is clear in evidence around Moss Park, on which we have engaged previously. We are working with partners on further interventions, which I hope will help to improve the situation, as we are starting to see from the data.
Last month, NHS Grampian declared a board-level critical incident, due to overoccupancy at Aberdeen royal infirmary and Dr Gray’s, which is in my region, caused in large part by delayed discharge. My constituents have to travel long distances, including to Raigmore, which puts further pressure on the Highlands and Islands. What more could be done, and at quick speed, to get rid of the delayed discharge issues that we have?
I thank Tim Eagle for his question, because it allows me to reiterate the fact that the pressures that impact on the hospital environment are shared with the social care environment. We need to ensure that we respond to the pressures that exist in primary and secondary care and in the acute system. That is exactly what we are targeting with the interventions that we are taking through the budget, which is why I hope that colleagues on all sides of the chamber will support it and allow us to get on with that work.
Dentistry Provision (NHS Dumfries and Galloway)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Dumfries and Galloway regarding the provision of dentistry. (S6O-04230)
The director general for health and social care met with senior officials from NHS Dumfries and Galloway, including the chief executive, to discuss national health service dental provision this Monday, 20 January. I understand that the discussion was productive, and my officials continue to meet quarterly with the health board to discuss all aspects of NHS dental service delivery.
We know that more than 17,000 NHS dental patients across Dumfries and Galloway have been deregistered. Last week, I met with a retired dentist who suggested that mobile dental units could be a solution. Could the minister consider raising that with NHS D and G to ensure that people in Dumfries and Galloway have access to an NHS dentist?
I know that some health boards, such as NHS Tayside, to which I referred in responding to previous questions, have chosen to invest in mobile dental units. I understand that those have been successful, and I certainly encourage such innovative thinking. However, that would be a decision for the health board to make, based on its individual needs and circumstances.
Premature Babies (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what policies it is considering to better support the health of premature babies on neonatal units, including the development of a specialised baby box. (S6O-04231)
Since 2017, the Scottish Government has been working with national health service boards to implement “The best start” plan to improve the quality and safety of maternity and neonatal services and to secure improved health and wellbeing for mothers and babies. “The best start” plan emphasises parents as key partners in caring for their baby and aims to keep mothers and babies together as much as possible, with services being designed around them.
Recommendations include providing accommodation; the young patients family fund; repatriating babies to their local neonatal units; and transitional care and neonatal community care. The plan also recommends that we move to three neonatal intensive care units, based on evidence that outcomes will be improved for the most pre-term and sickest babies.
Many essential items in the baby box are suitable for premature babies, and the Scottish Government has no plans to introduce a specialised baby box for premature babies.
Premature babies have very specific needs, and the baby box is often stocked with items that are not appropriate for those babies at birth. A premature baby box could contain things such as specially sized clothes; sensory toys, which are important for development; specific information on prem awareness and baby care; and details of the young patients family fund, which the minister mentioned.
I ask the minister again, therefore, whether she thinks that the standard baby box is appropriate for some very low birth-weight, pre-term babies, and whether the Government would consider even a pilot scheme to support a baby box that is specifically designed for premature babies.
I thank Mark Griffin for his follow-up question. I absolutely recognise the work that he did, along with the Government, to implement the young patients family fund, and I thank him for that work.
I am listening to what he is saying. There are certain items in the baby box that are suitable for premature babies, but we would be happy to meet with Mr Griffin to have a further conversation around the matter.
NHS Fife Chief Executive (Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the chief executive of NHS Fife, and what was discussed. (S6O-04232)
Both ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Fife, to discuss matters of importance to local people. Senior health officials met with the NHS Fife chief executive earlier today as part of the national health service executive group, which discusses key operational matters and supports NHS boards and senior leaders to work co-operatively, regionally and nationally.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that timely access to medical treatment—whether via a general practitioner appointment or hospital intervention—is a worry for an increasing number of my constituents. What action is he taking to deal with those concerns?
I absolutely agree with Annabelle Ewing’s assessment, which is why the prioritisation that we have set out through the budget aims to tackle those very issues.
In relation to GP appointments, we continue to work together with all relevant partners to effectively implement the general practice access principles that were established in 2023, including through our commitment to the on-going recruitment of primary care multidisciplinary teams, as well as 800 more GPs.
As Annabelle Ewing will be aware, our draft budget sets out a clear plan to reduce waiting times and delayed discharges, which is supported by the provision of £200 million of targeted investment, and shift the balance of care from acute to community. We will also continue to build on the good work that is under way in many boards, including by ensuring that every core accident and emergency department has a frailty unit or frailty team that is linked to community re-enablement and by optimising our flow navigation centres to create more alternatives to accident and emergency.
We want to make progress on improving our health service. That is why, by 26 March, we expect nobody to wait longer than 12 months for a new out-patient appointment, in-patient treatment or day-case treatment.
NHS Fife has made it clear that the mental health estate is not fit for purpose. Stratheden hospital is an old Victorian building. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look at the case that NHS Fife is making for the mental health estate to be replaced to ensure that people get the proper care that they require?
I thank Alex Rowley for raising the issue in the tenor in which he has done so. Despite recent media coverage, it is simply untrue to claim that there is “no money” for mental health in NHS Fife or, indeed, in any other health board. Although we have had to take difficult decisions about reductions that affect all of Government, we maintain our commitment to mental health and have supported overall increases in mental health spending over a period of years.
Mr Rowley knows that the position on capital remains challenging. In determining our capital programme, we will assess the full implications of the UK autumn budget, and we await the outcome of the United Kingdom Government’s spending review.
The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland was very critical of the facilities at Stratheden hospital in Fife, which Alex Rowley has just mentioned. The facilities there are overcrowded, cramped and outdated, and there is a lack of privacy and a lack of access to recreational and therapeutic activities. When will the money be forthcoming to build a new facility?
I thank Willie Rennie for setting out the situation. I accept some of what he has said. I say to Willie Rennie what I said to Alex Rowley: we will provide an assessment, based on the UK Government’s recent budget, as well as the spending review, to enable us to determine what capital programme we can bring forward.
Neurodivergent Children and Young People (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed plans with NHS Lanarkshire to ensure that neurodivergent children and young people receive the right treatment and support. (S6O-04233)
The Scottish Government engages regularly with all health boards regarding their provision of support for neurodivergent children and young people. We are working closely with health boards and local authorities towards implementing the national neurodevelopmental specification in full. The specification aims to ensure that children and families receive support and access to services that meet their needs at the earliest opportunity, based on the getting it right for every child approach. That support will often be community or school based, and receipt of it should not be dependent on a formal diagnosis.
In March last year, I raised with the First Minister the case of my constituent in Lanarkshire, who is now just 14, who had been waiting three and a half years for a neurodevelopmental assessment. She was eventually given an assessment in April last year, but she then had to wait until December before any treatment began. That wee girl’s mum described to me how her daughter often spent hours lying on the floor, screaming and crying in pain. She believes that, had she had that treatment sooner, she would not be facing a massive uphill struggle to get her health and life back.
Minister, my constituent’s mum wants to know why it has taken more than four years for her daughter to finally get treatment. What is the Government doing to change things and stop other kids who are struggling now having to wait years to get the support that they need?
As I have said many times in the chamber, the Government’s ambition in relation to the provision of support for children with neurodivergence is to look at the whole child and to provide holistic support, regardless of whether they have a diagnosis.
The needs of the child should be identified and met, and their rights should be upheld. That is the system that we intend to operate. NHS Lanarkshire is working very hard to implement the national neurodevelopmental specification, and it proactively provides support to children and families, although I acknowledge that the level of support in the case that Mr Smyth has detailed has not met the standard that I expect. I know that NHS Lanarkshire provides services, including speech therapy, dietetics and learning groups for parents, and that is independent of being provided a diagnosis.
It is important to recognise the unwavering support and dedication of families with neurodivergent children. I am part of such a family and can attest to the extreme challenges that you face in seeking to secure access to diagnosis and support.
Can the minister please provide an update on what further intended actions the Scottish Government is taking, both in the 2025-26 budget and in the longer term, to best support families of neurodivergent young people in alleviating the difficulties that they face?
I recognise the work that Elena Whitham has done on that issue, and I want to reassure all families that it is an absolute priority for the Government. I am happy to detail some of the funding that we are providing, which, since 2020, has included £65 million for local authorities to fund community-based mental health and wellbeing support services for children, young people and, crucially, their families.
That investment will continue. I will provide details in writing of the number of families who have benefited from that investment.
I thank colleagues for accommodating so many portfolio questions.
14:51 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Safety in Schools