Official Report 386KB 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.
Salmon Numbers (Rivers)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to restore salmon numbers in Scotland’s rivers. (S6O-05483)
I take the issue of declining wild Atlantic salmon populations very seriously. Under our wild salmon strategy and the accompanying implementation plan, we are taking urgent action with partners to ensure the protection and recovery of this iconic species. Most recently, as a result of passing amendments that were lodged by Emma Harper, we increased penalties for the most serious and damaging fisheries crimes through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
Since 2021, we have awarded more than £5 million through marine fund Scotland for projects that directly benefit wild salmon and more than £8 million through the nature restoration fund to support projects to improve Scotland’s freshwater environment. Over the past 12 years, we have also awarded £12 million through the water environment fund on barrier removal and easement projects.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding the River Dee.
Despite valiant conservation efforts, such as the River Dee Trust’s one million trees campaign, numbers of wild Atlantic salmon have declined by 70 per cent under the Scottish National Party, and they are now an endangered species. Wild fisheries contribute more than £100 million annually to our national economy—they support tourism, jobs and local businesses. However, NatureScot is in denial about seal predation and acoustic solutions that are neither workable nor affordable.
Does the cabinet secretary even understand the issue and the impact that it is having on our local economy, or is she content that her legacy will be that of the extinction of Scotland’s iconic wild salmon?
Straight off, I do not appreciate the patronising tone of that supplementary question from Alexander Burnett. To blame a political party for the decline of a species, which is due to climatic conditions and a whole host of other factors, is entirely ridiculous and does not treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
Come and speak with my constituents.
If Alexander Burnett would care to listen, he would hear that I have outlined the work that has been undertaken through the wild salmon strategy, the accompanying implementation plan and the funding that is going towards that.
The member might also be interested to know that I will meet the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board and the River Dee Trust tomorrow to hear their concerns directly. We work together with them and other partners because we know that the matter requires urgent action, which we are taking.
Given that the River Tweed is an iconic salmon river that provides around £24 million to the economy and 500 jobs, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that sewage treatment works and overflows along the Tweed are not damaging water quality or undermining salmon recovery?
I can get back to Rachael Hamilton on those particular points if she follows up on them with me in writing. We should take all action to mitigate any damage to the Tweed, and I am happy to look into the issue in more detail.
Avian Influenza (Support for Poultry Producers)
To ask the Scottish Government what financial or practical support is being made available to poultry producers affected by the latest avian influenza outbreak. (S6O-05484)
The Scottish Government pays compensation for healthy birds that are humanely culled in order to prevent the spread of avian influenza. Compensation payments are based on Great Britain table valuations, which are regularly reviewed and updated in order to ensure that they reflect current costs and different production systems.
The Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is the Scottish Government’s lead operational partner, provides support directly to owners of premises that are affected by avian flu as part of the disease control response. That includes on-farm support as part of disease control activities and detailed advice on biosecurity.
Glenrath Farms, one of the biggest egg producers in the country, has been hit by multiple bird flu outbreaks. As recently as this year—2026—customers in Glasgow have struggled to purchase eggs due to bird flu. Several supermarkets, including Asda and Tesco, have had no eggs available on the shelves, and other retailers have limited sales to two boxes, which I experienced recently.
Given that, what long-term preventative strategy is the Scottish Government putting in place to protect the poultry sector from recurring avian influenza outbreaks and to raise public awareness about the importance of the issue for people’s daily shop?
Pauline McNeill is absolutely correct to point out that there has been quite a large outbreak of avian influenza this year. Since November 2025, 1.5 million hens have been culled. However, there is more resilience in the national flock than there has been for a while. An article in The Scotsman on 29 January quoted Nick Allen, who is the chief executive of the British Egg Industry Council, as saying:
“In terms of supply, the national laying flock is currently in a stronger and more resilient position than it has been for a number of years so we do not anticipate this incident resulting in shortages for consumers.”
The Scottish Retail Consortium, which represents major supermarkets north of the border, said:
“Grocery retailers have become accustomed to a degree of supply chain disruption from Bird Flu and other events in recent years”,
and they adapt accordingly.
On Pauline McNeill’s point about long-term resilience, keepers should be aware that avian flu is a naturally occurring issue and should ensure that their biosecurity is in hand. By doing that, they will protect their flocks.
Will the minister remind the Parliament of the vital importance of stringent biosecurity measures when it comes to protecting poultry flocks from avian influenza?
I am glad that Evelyn Tweed has asked that question, because I should have said in my previous answer that there is good practical biosecurity advice on how to protect birds on the gov.scot avian influenza web pages. Such measures include cleaning footwear before and after visiting birds, placing birds’ food and water in fully enclosed areas that are protected from wild birds and removing spilled feed regularly. It is important to prevent the incursion and spread of avian flu and, if farmers carry out those measures, they will better protect their stocks.
Question 3 is from Elena Whitham, who joins us remotely.
Good Food Nation (Local Procurement, Local Produce and Food Miles)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its good food nation journey encourages local procurement, promotes local produce and reduces food miles. (S6O-05485)
Our first national good food nation plan, which was published on 17 December 2025, sets out how we will work collectively across the Government to meet our good food nation ambitions. Public procurement is key to ensuring that everyone has access to healthy, fresh and seasonal food. We are committed to exploring all legislative and policy opportunities to maximise the impact that procurement can have on public bodies in relation to our excellent Scottish produce. Our good food nation plan contains information that directs suppliers towards resources that will help them to participate in public procurement, including specific support for small and medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations.
Will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government is supporting the prioritisation of local Scottish food in public procurement? Does that include supporting investment in publicly owned or community-owned regional processing facilities and food hubs, which strengthen local food resilience and further community wealth building aspirations?
I welcome Elena Whitham’s question, which raises some important points. Our local food resilience and community wealth building aspirations are realised, strengthened and supported in a number of ways. One of those ways is through our food for life programme, which we have supported for a number of years. The programme, which tries to increase the amount of healthy, locally sourced produce in our schools and local authorities, has supported Argyll and Bute Council, in partnership with Wild Jura Ltd, to supply venison products to local schools across Islay and Jura.
Through the food for life programme, we have also been working with the Soil Association to expand such work more broadly across the public sector. For example, a specific pilot project in Glasgow has been looking at that issue.
We try to do a lot within the regulations in which we have to operate, and we support local food resilience in a number of ways. A good example is the small producers pilot fund, through which we have provided funding to support the private kill service in our abattoirs, because we know that that is critical to local supply chains. We are also—
Please conclude, cabinet secretary.
—making capital funding available for our small producers.
I call Rhoda Grant, who joins us remotely, to ask a supplementary question.
The cabinet secretary is aware that there were concerns that the Scottish statutory instrument on the good food nation plan that she introduced last year was drawn very narrowly and omitted crucial sectors such as agriculture and fisheries. Has she had time to reflect on that? Does she plan to expand the scope of the instrument?
First, to be clear, the SSI that was laid at that time was framed in a very particular way and was focused on specified functions. It needed to be framed in that way to enable the good food nation plan to be taken into consideration when those powers and functions were exercised. To say that it did not include agriculture and fisheries is not necessarily the case, because those sectors were to be considered through the rural support plan and in the national marine plan.
We are taking into consideration the views that were heard during the discussions on the SSI, but it is not possible for me to introduce another SSI in the time that is left in this session of Parliament. However, the work will continue, because we want to ensure that, when the good food nation plan is taken into consideration, it is done in a meaningful way that will have a tangible impact.
Marine Protection Vessels (Marine Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the procurement of marine protection vessels for Marine Scotland. (S6O-05486)
The Scottish Government remains committed to replacing its marine protection and research vessels, with MPV Minna and MRV Scotia both approaching the point for renewal.
Last year, a private information notice was issued to signal the future opportunity to the market. The next step is to issue a single procurement document. Before that happens, wider consideration is being given across Government to vessel procurement routes and subsidy control, including implications for publicly owned shipyards. It is important that ministers take decisions on all vessel programmes on a consistent and legally robust basis.
The cabinet secretary will be very much aware of our correspondence and discussions on the replacement of the existing vessels. I believe that Ferguson Marine is perfectly placed to deliver those vessels. It has the experience, as it built MPV Minna in 2003 and MPV Jura in 2005. Allocating the direct award would be a boost for the workforce, and it would also begin to provide a pipeline of orders. Will the cabinet secretary advise on whether ministers are pursuing that approach? If so, when will a decision be made on that?
I appreciate Stuart McMillan’s interest in, and his writing to me on, the issue.
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting Ferguson Marine, but we have not made any decisions regarding the contracting routes for the marine protection and research vessels. Any contract award, whether that is made through competition or directly, must comply with stringent procurement and subsidy control requirements, to avoid the risk of legal challenge.
Direct awards in the shipbuilding sector are particularly complex, due to the sensitivity of the industry under the United Kingdom Subsidy Control Act 2022 as well as the highly competitive nature of the global market. Ministers will consider each vessel contract in due course, ensuring that any chosen route to market is lawful, robustly assessed and capable of withstanding comprehensive legal scrutiny.
The Scottish Government has not placed a contract for a ship in Scotland in the past decade, and we are facing a significant challenge regarding the future of Ferguson Marine. There is a remedy in the procurement of those vessels, because, although they are not naval vessels, they have an obvious national security application. I know that UK Government ministers are interested in discussions with the Scottish Government about applying section 45 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to the procurement and would look at options for doing so. Will the minister engage with UK Government officials and ministers on the option of securing a section 45 exemption and a direct award to Ferguson Marine?
Paul Sweeney will be aware that I have answered similar questions previously. Defence and national security are reserved to the UK Government, and Scotland does not commission independent naval vessels.
The design of the replacement vessels reflects the operational needs of the marine directorate. It does not include warship specifications or military capability, which could misrepresent the vessels’ authority at sea. MPVs are built and operated to merchant vessel standards, with Crown servant crews accountable to the Scottish ministers. As merchant-class vessels, they fall outside the defence-related exemptions that are referenced in section 45 of the 2022 act.
There is no doubt that marine protection and enforcement are important, but, following the removal of the Airtask Group’s aircraft, which is based at Inverness, I still worry that they have taken a hit. Does the cabinet secretary believe that new vessels, when they come, will ensure that we have in place strong protections and monitoring, given the loss of experience and the speed of response that we once had at Inverness airport?
It is not correct to frame the situation in that way, because what we have are additional capabilities with a lower cost. I need to be clear on that. We still have access to the same number of aerial surveillance hours under the new contract, with the ability to add more, so it does not diminish our capabilities—if anything, they are being enhanced through the use of new technologies, such as drones, as I outlined in discussions on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. We are always looking to increase and make improvements to those capabilities, particularly in relation to those vessels. I agree that such capabilities are important. We have a large marine area to cover, and we need to make sure that we have all those aspects in place.
Ecological Focus Area Activities (Orkney Agricultural Sector)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the agricultural sector in Orkney on changes being made to ecological focus area activities. (S6O-05487)
The Scottish Government has undertaken extensive engagement, which has ensured that enhanced greening requirements are proportionate for farmers, crofters and small farms. We have worked with stakeholder organisations, including the National Farmers Union Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Federation. We have involved farmers and crofters directly through user research and workshops with advisers across Scotland, including in Orkney.
That collaborative approach has led to the introduction of four new ecological focus areas and updates to existing EFAs, providing greater flexibility to reflect the diversity of farming systems, including local practices in Orkney. Advisers in Orkney also secured funding to analyse academic modelling that is specific to the islands and to organise roadshows to help farmers and crofters prepare for the changes. Two letters, a targeted email, articles in The Scottish Farmer, social media posts and the Farm Advisory Service’s videos and webinars have raised awareness of the changes.
The greening scheme, with a budget of £142 million, supports agriculture and the environment. That complements the other significant support packages, which the Scottish Government continues to provide—in stark contrast to the policies elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Farmers in Orkney have consistently raised with me their concerns about the EFA proposals, the impact that an increase to 7 per cent of all land will have on the overlap with existing agri-environment schemes, and the lack of suitable options for grassland systems such as those that are used in Orkney. I know that the minister is well aware of those concerns and of the calls for an island exemption. If he does not believe that such an exemption is possible or justified, what further steps will he take to ensure that the EFA obligations are properly island proofed?
Liam McArthur will be aware that we have had many discussions about what the EFA will do. We included four new options, and specific work was done for the Orkney Islands. When the first EFAs were brought in, in 2015, there was a huge upsurge in people saying that they were a disaster and would not work. However, by 2016, once people had understood exactly what was being asked of them, there were no other issues.
I recently met two young Orcadians who came down to speak to me directly to raise those issues. I had a conversation with them in which we went through all the options available to them. I said to them, “Please do this in good faith. Let’s see where we go, and if, in two or three years’ time, there’s an issue, we’ll come back to look at it.” We are asking farmers to do more, but we are taking clear action to protect farmers and livestock units, particularly in Orkney. We are going in the right direction, and we will do so in collaboration with the farming community.
Remote Electronic Monitoring (Fishing Vessels)
To ask the Scottish Government when it will implement remote electronic monitoring on vessels fishing in Scottish waters. (S6O-05488)
From 7 March 2026, all relevant pelagic vessels fishing in Scottish waters must have an REM system on board. For Scottish-registered pelagic vessels, that requirement applies regardless of where they are operating. It is already a legislative requirement for all scallop dredge vessels operating in Scottish waters to have an REM system on board. As part of the development of the Scottish-led demersal fisheries management plans, we have committed to developing a road map for further roll-out of REM in priority fisheries around the United Kingdom, with clear prioritisation criteria and an implementation timetable. Those fisheries management plans are currently subject to public consultation.
Some vessels—particularly long-line vessels and gill netters—pose a significant threat to seabirds. Does the minister agree that REM is a key tool that can fill data gaps and help to reduce the bycatch of seabird species such as the fulmar, the northern gannet and the Manx shearwater, and that its implementation can benefit fishermen who are operating in accordance with best practice by evidencing sustainable practices through objective, verifiable data?
I absolutely agree with that last point. It is great that we have been leading on that in Scotland and that other nations have been looking at the technology, too. The wider use of remote electronic monitoring technologies will help us to better monitor fishing operations, effort and catch, and to deliver on our obligations to minimise and, where possible, eliminate bycatch of seabirds and other sensitive species as part of our wider efforts to ensure the sustainability of our fishing fleet.
Observer programmes are in place across the United Kingdom that collect data on the incidental bycatch of protected species, including seabirds, by commercial fishing vessels, and there is a focus on high-risk fisheries and regions. Further roll-out of remote electronic monitoring beyond the scallop and pelagic fleet segments is being planned, and options will be developed for that alongside our future catching policy work.
Given that members of the Scottish scallop fleet report that they still have no access to the REM data that is gathered on their own vessels, despite being told that it would support and improve their operations, and given that the cost of maintaining REM equipment is rising year on year, what assurances can the Government give that the system will deliver any practical benefit to fishers? When will the scallop fleet finally be given access to its own data?
It is my understanding that members of the scallop fleet can access their data through the REM equipment on the vessels. However, if there is an issue, I would appreciate it if Finlay Carson could follow up with me, so that I can look at it in more detail.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the cost of REM systems. Of course, the Scottish Government cannot influence that, as it is up to the REM providers. However, vessels can use alternative providers, as long as the equipment meets the technical specifications.
If Finlay Carson writes to me, so that I can look into any issues that he is hearing about directly, I will follow up with a more detailed response.
Question 7 has not been lodged.
Tree Planting (2025-26 Targets)
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I own a farm in Moray, which includes some trees.
We are currently in the middle of the tree planting season. Reporting on the tree planting target is provided through the official statistics on woodland creation, which will be published by Forest Research on 25 June. Therefore, I cannot comment on the final position at this time.
For Scotland to get back on track, in every year between now and 2029, we will need to plant another 3,277 hectares over and above the Scottish Government’s target of 15,000 hectares per year that has already been set. That is roughly 7 million more trees each year. Personally, I doubt that that is achievable, which makes our net zero targets unachievable, and it will certainly not be achievable unless we have further grant aid and a reduction in bureaucracy. Will the cabinet secretary commit to driving forward the latter, which was started by Fergus Ewing five years ago?
I think that it is achievable. I know that Edward Mountain has been looking at the climate change plan in his capacity as convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I appeared at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in relation to the aspects of the climate change plan that relate to my portfolio. In that plan, we have set out our planting targets for the next few years. In the budget for the coming financial year, and for the spending review period, we have the funding to match that and for the targets to be delivered. The targets are achievable and we have the budget to deliver them. We now just need to get on and do that.
Mercedes Villalba has a brief supplementary question.
I apologise for being late to the chamber today, Presiding Officer.
What proportion of the trees planted towards the target have been, or will be, native broadleaf species rather than invasive non-native species such as Sitka spruce?
I cannot speak for future planting, but I think that, in relation to what we have planted so far, in recent years, roughly half of what has been planted has been native. I want to make sure that I have that absolutely right, so I will follow up with Mercedes Villalba. I think that our target was about 40 per cent, but we have gone over and above that.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Health and Social Care
The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members that questions 3 and 7 are grouped together and that therefore I shall take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered.
I call Alasdair Allan, who joins us remotely.
Dental Provision (NHS Western Isles)
Officials are meeting monthly with the director of dentistry for the Western Isles, to understand local service provision and concerns. We recognise that access remains more challenging in rural and island areas, which is why our operational improvement plan commits to reviewing and refreshing the financial incentives available to the dental sector, to better support patient access in rural and island areas. That work is under way and we anticipate that revised incentives will be introduced in the 2026-27 financial year.
I appreciate the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to improve the situation. However, people in many communities across the Western Isles have not been able to get on a waiting list for a local dentist for several years—much less to access check-up appointments or anything other than extremely urgent dental care. Prevention is far preferable to later treatment. Can the minister outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that all my constituents are able to begin accessing regular check-ups and routine dental work on the national health service?
As I noted in my earlier answer, we are committed to the review and refresh of financial incentives to support the workforce and patient access in rural and island areas. That work is at an advanced stage. It is my hope that, once in force, the revised allowances will encourage renewed uptake of high-street provision in island areas such as the Western Isles, and support patients in engaging in regular check-ups and routine dental work.
There are five major dental vacancies across the Outer Hebrides, including three in Uist and Barra. Those include a critical senior dental officer role. Patients who cannot register with a dentist are being told not to make emergency appointments unless they cannot sleep due to the pain.
I understand that there are issues with ventilation and fallow time in the surgeries, which limit the number of daily appointments that can be taken. What is the minister doing to address those issues and to ensure that dentists are recruited and retained and that surgeries are upgraded to allow a continuous flow of patients?
As I indicated in my answer to Dr Allan, we are in the process of reviewing the dental access improvement schemes and the funding that is available to dentists, to ensure that practices are set up. That is an important part of the work that we need to do.
I highlight that I am disappointed about the restrictions that the United Kingdom Government has put on visas for dental technicians. Those visas would allow us to improve our workforce in Scotland and across the UK, to ensure that people get the right support from their dentist as they need it.
Over the weekend, I was shocked to read that all dental practices in the Outer Hebrides are now shut to new adult patients. It seems to be yet another extreme example of a substantial failure of workforce planning, leading to island residents once again paying the price. It is clear that simply changing incentives is not going to be good enough in some more remote areas. Could the minister consider the expansion of public dental provision so that direct salary dental vacancies are created in the islands?
I have been clear in my responses to other questions that we are willing to look at whatever solutions there are. Two years ago, we reviewed the fees that dentists receive, which has improved uptake for dentists. We are also reviewing the governance to ensure that we can get as many dentists in Scotland as we need and that we can increase the intake of dentistry students in universities.
Bed Capacity (Dr Gray’s Hospital Elgin and NHS Grampian)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase the number of available beds in Dr Gray’s hospital Elgin and throughout NHS Grampian facilities. (S6O-05492)
It is for national health service boards and their planning partners to design and deliver healthcare services that meet the needs of the local populations that they serve in a way that is consistent with national policies, frameworks and best practice.
NHS Grampian is making good progress, under new leadership and its escalation improvement plan, to stabilise services and release capacity by improving hospital flow across its sites, not least through the Government’s additional investment in initiatives to effectively shift the balance of care, such as hospital at home, frailty services and discharge to assess.
That answer was really just a case of passing the buck. The cabinet secretary must know that corridor care is now commonplace, and that that is having a massive effect on patients and staff. Dr Gray’s is regularly operating beyond funded bed numbers, which is putting more and more pressure on services. I understand that NHS Grampian currently has the lowest bed base in Scotland, at around 1.4 beds per 1,000 people. The long-term decline in capacity is contributing to pressures.
Will the Government set out why, after another year has passed, bed capacity has still not been increased? What immediate steps will the Government take to ensure that patients are treated with dignity and that staff are supported with the resources that they need?
It is a statutory responsibility of NHS boards to plan, design and deliver healthcare services that meet the needs of the local population. However, Tim Eagle will be aware that we have escalated NHS Grampian to level 4 because of its financial position and other elements of its performance. As part of that escalation process, we are looking at precisely the types of areas that Mr Eagle has suggested. I am confident in the progress that is being made under the new leadership of Laura Skaife-Knight, and I am confident that the assurance process is ensuring that the board’s general performance and its financial performance are improving.
Budget 2026-27 (National Health Service Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce NHS waiting times through its draft budget 2026-27. (S6O-05493)
Through this year’s targeted investment in planned care, we have seen waits of more than 52 weeks reduce for seven consecutive months. I want to maintain momentum and build on that progress, which is why our draft budget for 2026-27 includes the record figure of almost £22.5 billion for health and social care. We will scale up productivity and efficiency programmes to create additional capacity.
In addition, health boards have been directed to take forward a new collaborative subnational planning approach, which will involve boards working together to best use and optimise available capacity to ensure that patients receive the care that they need as soon as possible.
It is welcome that the Scottish National Party Scottish Government has taken bold, decisive action on our NHS, which has resulted in waiting times coming down for a seventh month in a row, as he said, while waiting lists remain high in Labour-run NHS England. How will the Scottish Government continue to build on that success? I am thinking, in particular, of its investment in our innovative general practitioner walk-in centres.
Jackie Dunbar’s question is timely, especially the latter part of it, because today marks the opening of Scotland’s first GP walk-in service pilot, which is a milestone in improving access to care. As part of that £36 million pilot programme, 15 services will initially be rolled out across Scotland. Those services will allow people with minor, urgent, non-emergency needs to see a clinician the same day, without having to go through the 8 am rush for appointments. Staffed by GPs and advanced nurse practitioners, the services focus on minor urgent issues that cannot wait but do not require treatment at accident and emergency. They are not a replacement for someone’s own GP for issues such as long-term conditions—they complement existing practices.
National Health Service (Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding NHS waiting times. (S6O-05497)
The latest published statistics show the sustained progress that we are making in reducing waiting times, with long waits having been reduced for the seventh month in a row.
In the 12 months to December 2025, 274,638 operations were performed, which represented a 5.6 per cent increase on the previous 12-month period. Between July and December 2025, new out-patient waits of more than 52 weeks reduced by 40.1 per cent. Long waits for in-patient and day-case procedures have fallen every month since July 2025, and waits of more than 52 weeks decreased by 23.9 per cent over that period.
Those latest figures show that our plan is delivering for the people of Scotland, and I am committed to continuing to maintain momentum and building on that progress.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Perhaps Jackie Dunbar and I should communicate with each other more often.
It is always good to tell people good news more than once, so can the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government will continue to drive down those waiting times?
I remember the former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, saying that repetition is not a novelty in politics, and George Adam is certainly living up to that today.
This year, we have provided more than £135.5 million to reduce waiting times, with a further £20 million allocated in the last quarter to support boards in targeting specialties with the longest waits. I want to maintain that momentum and build on that progress. That is why our budget includes a record £22.5 billion for health and social care, and why we are working closely with boards to increase and optimise capacity and efficiency and improve productivity to ensure that patients receive the care that they need as soon as possible.
In 2026-27, we have commissioned more than 50,000 diagnostic tests and procedures through our national treatment centres and the Golden Jubilee university hospital in 2026-27.
Today, I spoke to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association. They paint a very different picture from the one that the cabinet secretary is alluding to. They talk about corridor care, staff not being able to deliver the care that they want to, staff harm and patient harm, and they say that there are no beds available. When will we fix the whole system so that the back door of the hospital is sorted and beds become available?
Our approach to turning the health service around and making sure that it continues to turn the corner in the way that it has done over recent months involves looking at the whole system. Brian Whittle is absolutely right to raise those concerns, and I am sure that he recognises the substantial and demonstrable progress that has been made in waiting times for elective procedures. However, I also recognise the concerns that there are from the likes of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which I meet regularly and routinely, as well as the other colleagues whom Mr Whittle references, about the areas that still need to see progress. The accident and emergency waiting times figures that were released this week demonstrate that there is still more to be done. Indeed, that measure shows that there is more to be done across the whole system—not just in our accident and emergency departments, which are incredibly efficient, but in the wider system, including social care, which needs to ensure that it is picking up the same productivity gains that we are seeing in elective capacity.
Spin is clearly not a novelty with the Scottish National Party Government, because the First Minister said that he would end waits of more than a year by March this year, yet, according to Public Health Scotland, there were almost 63,000 waits of more than a year and more than 8,000 waits of more than two years, compared with just a few hundred in England. Does the minister accept that the First Minister has broken yet another promise and that patients are waiting too long for treatment? Is this the usual case of the SNP promising the world but delivering absolutely nothing?
Given that recent revelations show that the NHS in England has been paying trusts to incentivise them to remove patients from lists, that is probably not the best route for Ms Baillie to go down in terms of a comparison between Scotland and England, because we certainly do not deploy that tactic in Scotland.
We are making demonstrable progress in reducing waiting times, not by incentivising our boards to remove patients from lists but by increasing capacity and improving patient delivery.
Cancer Treatment Waiting Times
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. (S6O-05494)
The performance for the 31-day standard is 95.1 per cent, which is above the 95 per cent target, with the median wait for treatment being just two days.
We are investing £14.24 million of the £137 million of planned care funding that was made available in 2025-26 directly in efforts to reduce cancer waiting times, supported by increasing radiology capacity to support seven-day working, and by publishing and implementing optimal diagnostic pathways for lung, head and neck and colorectal cancers, with a total of almost £7.5 million of investment to ensure that patients have cancer ruled in or out faster. We have also established the six rapid cancer diagnostic services, which help us to more quickly find the hardest-to-spot cancers in particular.
Waiting times for the most serious cancer cases could be reduced if we caught people early. That is why we need a national screening programme for lung cancer, not the pilots that the Scottish Government has promised. In England, screening is available to people aged between 55 and 74 who have ever smoked, and 77 per cent of lung cancer cases are now diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with stage 4 in Scotland. Screening saves lives and money, and I want it to happen throughout Scotland. When will we get a national lung cancer screening programme here?
I recognise that some progress has been made on a lung screening programme in England. The programme is not consistent or universal, because there are challenges in standing it up. We are seeking to overcome those challenges on a consistent, national and universal basis, so that the lung screening programme that we have committed to is up and running as quickly as possible. I give Graham Simpson the assurance that I gave at a recent cancer conference: we are looking at every possible step to expedite a universal lung screening programme in Scotland, for the very reason that Graham Simpson has outlined, which is that it absolutely can save lives.
Renfrewshire Health and Social Care Partnership
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Renfrewshire health and social care partnership and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05495)
Scottish Government ministers and officials meet regularly with representatives of all health and social care partnerships. The Renfrewshire health and social care partnership representative attended the collaborative response and assurance group on Monday this week. The meeting focused on delayed discharge performance.
Scottish Government officials met the Renfrewshire health and social care partnership on 8 April 2025. A number of issues were discussed, including local system pressures, financial challenges and engagement.
Social care is in crisis under the Scottish National Party, and vulnerable people across Scotland are paying the price. As a Renfrewshire MSP, the minister will know that there are, in Renfrewshire alone, proposals to cut respite support, cut support for those with autism and close vital facilities, such as the disability resource centre in Paisley. After public pressure, decisions on those proposals have been delayed until June—after the election.
The First Minister has refused my request to step in and stop those cuts, and the Scottish Government’s budget does nothing to help in the social care crisis. Why is the Government not doing anything to prevent those cuts, which will impact on the most vulnerable people in Renfrewshire?
I thank Mr Bibby for bringing those important matters to the chamber. Government officials and ministers, including the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, are committed to on-going engagement. The draft budget that is before Parliament commits more than £15.7 billion to local government and almost £22.5 billion to health and social care.
Decisions for integrated joint boards are, of course, for those boards to take. That is the view that the Parliament ultimately came to about where responsibility and accountability should lie. However, the Government is, of course, committed to on-going engagement and, through the annual budget process, there is always the opportunity for members of all parties to put forward their views on the overall allocation of resources to both local government and health and social care.
I fear that Mr Bibby is unaware of the irony with which his question is tainted. Just last week, his own colleagues quietly submitted a motion to annul an order giving disabled people and unpaid carers on IJBs such as Renfrewshire’s the voting rights to decide how the funding that he has referenced would be spent. Will the minister join me in calling out Scottish Labour for once again politicising our health and social care services, and will he outline how all IJBs will be funded in a way that best meets the needs of all service users over the next financial year?
I thank Clare Haughey for her supplementary question. I was somewhat surprised, perplexed and, frankly, appalled that a motion was submitted by the Labour Party to annul an order that would extend voting rights to lived-experience members. However, I am pleased that the Labour Party has seen sense and withdrawn its motion—or, to use another phrase, made a U-turn. I agree that Labour colleagues should explain to groups with lived experience—those who use social care, unpaid carers and third sector organisations—why they sought to annul the extension of voting rights on IJBs. It is for Labour to explain that.
The Government is determined to ensure that those who access and support community health and social care services have an equal say in shaping the decisions that affect their communities. That is why we have moved to deliver the extension of voting rights on IJBs, despite the Labour Party’s trying to block that.
Carol Mochan has a brief supplementary question.
The Government has provided no extra funding to IJBs to support any of that work.
The minister knows that that is the proper procedure to allow me to discuss such matters and bring to the attention of the Parliament issues from trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government. If you cared at all, you would be prepared to talk properly—
Always speak through the chair.
—about how we discuss these matters and ensure that we can do so like adults.
The member might have a point, if it was not for the fact that I spent a considerable amount of time at committee last week discussing these matters. I accept the arguments about process, on which I provided reassurance; I also explained the work that the Government is undertaking.
The question is one of principle. Do you stand with unpaid carers, with people who use social care and with the third sector? Once again, Labour stood against them.
Again, always speak through the chair.
Sodium Valproate Redress Scheme
The United Kingdom Government has still not responded to the Hughes report. We are two years on from the report’s publication, and the delay is unreasonable and unfair for affected people and their families. I made that point strongly when I met last month with the UK health minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed. The Scottish Government has still not received any proposals for financial redress schemes that would support the implementation of Dr Hughes’s recommendations. We stand ready to consider any proposals and to work constructively on a four-nations basis.
My constituents, Charlie and Caroline McKerrow, who are in the public gallery, have been fighting for years for justice for their daughter Claire and many others who have been harmed by sodium valproate, a drug that is given to pregnant women who are at risk of epilepsy.
The UK Government has had the Cumberlege report for six years and it has now had the Hughes report for two years. The Hughes report recommends that a redress scheme be introduced, but that has still not been agreed, leaving victims waiting and wondering whether they will ever get any justice from the Government for the harm that was done to their children.
Can the minister assure us, families such as the McKerrows and potentially thousands of other families that the Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government on the matter? If the UK Government continues to let the families down, what action can we take in Scotland to help right that terrible wrong?
I absolutely recognise how difficult and distressing the situation continues to be for affected individuals and their families. I was very pleased to meet and speak to Willie Coffey’s constituents, the McKerrows, in Parliament earlier.
As Willie Coffey will know, there was a debate about the issue in Westminster Hall this morning. As I understand it, the Department of Health and Social Care gave no new undertakings on redress and no commitment on the timing of a response. That is greatly disappointing, given the calls for action from the Scottish Government and the other devolved nations. I recognise that there is cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, so I hope that Labour colleagues in this Parliament will work with us to encourage their Labour colleague, Minister Ahmed, to finally take action.
We remain firmly committed to pushing for a resolution. I remain ready to work with the UK Government and will continue to push it to provide clarity about its position on financial redress. In parallel, the chief pharmaceutical officer is exploring how support for people who are harmed by valproate might be improved in Scotland.
The minister referred to the second anniversary of the Hughes report. Embedded in the Hughes report was the redress scheme that was recommended in respect of mesh women, as well as that for the condition that we have just heard about. There was cross-party support across all the parties in the Parliament—we stood united as a Parliament. I hope that the minister will exercise some influence and that our Labour colleagues will find some spine to stand up to the United Kingdom Government and say that this must not be another U-turn.
I agree with what Jackson Carlaw has said. I also reflect on the important work that he has done to ensure that women who are living with the consequences of mesh implants remain at the forefront of all our thoughts.
My officials have met UK officials on a number of occasions to try to move the issue forward and, as I said in my earlier response, along with my colleagues from Wales and Northern Ireland, I met Minister Ahmed to try to push it forward. The three nations are certainly working together on the issue.
Surgeries Carried out Abroad
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact on NHS Scotland of complications arising from surgeries carried out abroad by patients upon their return to Scotland. (S6O-05498)
The Scottish Government has not undertaken an assessment of the impact on NHS Scotland of complications arising from surgeries abroad. NHS Scotland provides emergency care based on patient need, regardless of where previous treatment was received. If complications from procedures undertaken abroad require national health service treatment, information on whether prior surgery was undertaken abroad is not routinely nor systematically recorded, so the impact cannot be quantified.
The Scottish Government encourages patients to consider the risks of treatment abroad and to ensure that aftercare arrangements are in place.
Further to that, has there been any engagement with United Kingdom counterparts regarding improving public awareness of the risks of travelling abroad for surgery?
We have shared our concerns on this important issue directly with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments for some time. We continue to discuss with them how best we can all protect public safety, given the implications that Evelyn Tweed raises.
That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions.
Air adhart
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital