Official Report 978KB pdf
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Fly-tipping in Rural Areas
To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on agriculture, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how to protect rural areas against fly-tipping. (S6O-05291)
I am very glad that Liz Smith has brought up that issue, because it is really important. The Government recognises the impact of fly-tipping on rural areas and understands the pressure that it places on farmers. We are strengthening enforcement and support in rural communities through the national litter and fly-tipping strategy. That includes work by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with local authorities to improve investigations and develop guidance for landowners on relevant powers. A private landowners grant fund supported the prevention and removal of fly-tipping in the first two years of the strategy, and a year 2 evaluation will be published shortly. The Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime and other partners are contributing through the strategy group.
The minister has been in the same meetings that I have sat through, in which farmers, in particular, have made their strong case that fly-tipping is creating considerable difficulties for their businesses and productivity. I suspect that Mr Fairlie knows exactly the areas in Perth and Kinross that I am talking about. Sadly, he will also know that Perth and Kinross Council and Fife Council are in the 10 worst areas when it comes to fly-tipping.
I hear what the minister has just said about the measures that are in place. However, are he and his ministerial colleagues convinced that, when people know who is undertaking the fly-tipping, enough is being done to ensure that those persons are apprehended and properly dealt with?
Because of the rurality of the crime, it is incredibly difficult to get on top of it. We have the national fly-tipping strategy; we also have to get better data, as data is critical. Work is already under way to strengthen national fly-tipping data and improve intelligence through digital waste tracking and the new reporting powers that are in the relevant act. Tackling fly-tipping supports wider priorities, including rural crime prevention, waste crime, environmental protection and community safety. The Government is definitely taking it very seriously.
“Repopulating Rural Scotland”
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Scottish Land & Estates report “Repopulating Rural Scotland”, including how the recommendations align with its current strategies to address rural depopulation. (S6O-05292)
The Government recognises the challenge of depopulation and is committed to working closely with partners to address it, with evidence highlighting that local communities are best placed to respond to their own distinct challenges. We are, therefore, currently funding seven councils to deliver pathfinder projects that address population decline, many of which align with some of the key areas that were highlighted by Scottish Land & Estates in its report. Building on that, ministers will shortly consider options for a second phase and, where resource allows, expand delivery across a wider range of partners. We have also launched a non-statutory rural assessment toolkit to recognise the unique characteristics, challenges and opportunities of rural areas. In addition, population retention and attraction is the overarching objective of our new national islands plan.
At the round-table discussion of the report, we agreed that a focus on rurality and the needs of rural people encompass many different directors and supporting committees; however, from the work in my various committees, I am aware that that does not always happen in practice. As the cabinet secretary has pointed out, and as the report said, clear accountability is needed and the monitoring of any initiatives needs to be carefully done. How will the Scottish Government measure the success of its rural repopulation policies across all portfolios?
Michelle Thomson has raised important points. The ministerial population task force meets quarterly. At that group, we agree cross-portfolio action around our population programme, which includes the work that we are doing to address depopulation.
In line with evidence, our response is ultimately led by local priorities and local communities. That is why interventions across multiple portfolios, such as when we consider housing, childcare and skills, are being delivered by affected councils.
We have established tailored monitoring and evaluation approaches with each of the delivery partners, to ensure that we can measure the initial outcomes that have been achieved. We are undertaking an interim evaluation that covers the first full year of delivery. We will then consider the outcomes of that review as we look forward to phase 2.
The cabinet secretary did not mention transport, but the report referenced “patchy” and “inadequate” transport having an effect on depopulation. That is certainly something that communities that are reliant on the Corran ferry will recognise, with both vessels currently out of service. This morning, I was contacted by an angry constituent who said that the area was struggling, with supplies and services affected. They also raised concerns that care support for the elderly is being affected by carers who rely on the ferry.
Will the cabinet secretary raise that issue with her Cabinet colleagues and her Scottish National Party colleagues on Highland Council and press them to reconsider the costly electric ferry option and ask them to look again at a replacement conventional ferry?
I recognise how important our basic infrastructure is when it comes to the retention of populations in rural areas and in island communities. I just listed some areas. Housing is another area of critical infrastructure—
Transport?
—but I recognise that transport is, too, as I have highlighted previously to the member.
I am happy to raise the points that the member has mentioned today with my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and to issue a further response to him.
Michelle Thomson mentioned cross-portfolio working. Repopulation is really important, including for Dumfries and Galloway. Will the Government maintain its commitment to that work after May 2026?
It is not for me to commit a future Government to the policies that could be introduced, but this Government absolutely recognises the importance of the work that we are progressing at a ministerial level through the population task force. We have undertaken a number of projects, as I outlined in my response to Michelle Thomson. We want to keep the momentum going. We will evaluate what has worked and what has not, so that we can continue to tackle those problems.
Public Access Rights
I apologise to the chamber for needing to leave before the end of this session of question time.
To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made to update national guidance for local authorities on their responsibilities to uphold public access rights. (S6O-05293)
I recognise the importance of the guidance to access authorities in part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That key document outlines their roles and responsibilities. I acknowledge that it has been some time since that guidance was last updated, which is why, during the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill stage 3 debate on 28 October this year, I undertook—in response to, I think, amendments from Mark Ruskell—to discuss the process for updating it with those interested members of the Scottish Parliament.
Officials will need to properly consider the process and resourcing that will be required for a review, but, once I have reviewed those options, my private office will contact those interested MSPs to discuss the next steps.
It is clear that the updated guidance is long overdue. It was first drafted in 2003, and it is clear that some councils are failing to adequately enforce access rights in and around communities. One of those communities, which the cabinet secretary will know, is Burntisland. I know that she has recently met the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and has indicated her intention to meet Forth Ports and Fife Council, to hold them to account over the long-standing issue of community access. What progress has been made under her leadership towards a resolution for that issue?
I thank Mark Ruskell and members across the chamber for highlighting the issues that have been experienced at Burntisland. The strength of feeling in the community was quite clear throughout the debate that we had on those amendments on land reform, which is why I have been determined since then to ensure that we keep up the momentum and try to find a solution, where possible, that works for everyone.
As Mark Ruskell outlined, I met the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust in Burntisland. That helpful meeting allowed me to get some of the background to the situation while seeing the area that we are talking about. I am still due to meet Fife Council and Forth Ports, and we are in the process of getting those meetings finalised.
I am happy to keep members updated on how those meetings progress, as well as on the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust, as we have those discussions, because I am keen that we find some form of resolution for the people of Burntisland.
Debates about access rights can often be quite polarised, but the reality is that huge numbers of people access our countryside every year, and it is done remarkably well. However, where conflict occurs, I often find that the landowner is questioned but the responsibility requirements of those accessing the land are not always pushed by local councils. If any update to the guidance is to be done, will the cabinet secretary ensure that the Government takes into account new thinking on what responsible access means?
I appreciate what Tim Eagle says about polarisation and what sometimes happens when we talk about the issue. However, Burntisland is a perfect example of a situation in which all parties from across the chamber came together to recognise that there are significant issues. Part of my response during the debate on that issue was that I want to engage with members—I asked those who are interested to contact me about it.
If the member wants to be involved in the conversation on the guidance, he should contact my office and let me know, because I want to make sure that we get the guidance right. I am open to having those discussions with anyone who has an interest in it.
Kilpatrick Hills
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting Forestry and Land Scotland to protect the Kilpatrick hills. (S6O-05294)
Forestry and Land Scotland manages approximately 3,500 hectares of land on behalf of Scottish ministers in the Kilpatrick hills, which is around 80 per cent of the land in the area that is loosely referred to as the Kilpatrick hills. Scottish Water manages the reservoirs on the upper ground.
The area is comprised of woodland and moorland, and it is managed for multipurpose objectives, including social and environmental objectives. The area is well used by visitors for recreation, including mountain biking. It also includes a section of the long-distance walking route the John Muir way. The John Muir way is the only formal trail, with other areas for walking being access roads and hill paths. The Scottish Government supports Forestry and Land Scotland through direct funding.
I recently met Forestry and Land Scotland and other stakeholders to discuss antisocial behaviour in the Kilpatrick hills, such as the illegal use of e-bikes and motorbikes on the trails. Litter, including remnants from campfires, also poses a risk. I am aware that campfire bans have been implemented in the Cairngorms national park during the summer months. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether Forestry and Land Scotland could consider that approach for the Kilpatrick hills? Will she join me in calling out the antisocial behaviour in the area that is causing damage to our precious environment?
Absolutely. I could not agree more with Marie McNair on that point. She mentioned the powers that the national park authorities have. Forestry and Land Scotland does not have those same byelaw-making powers, so it cannot replicate the actions that have been taken elsewhere to tackle some of those issues.
On the specific matters that Marie McNair has raised, we are currently developing a wildfire strategy for Scotland, through which we will explore and assess any potential legislative options for seasonal restrictions on fire lighting, as well as considering the use of disposable barbecues. In doing that, we will draw on the lessons that will be learned from the implementation of the new fire management byelaws in the Cairngorms national park.
I thank Marie McNair and her team for their involvement in the working group that has been established to co-ordinate resources to tackle the issue of antisocial behaviour in the Kilpatricks, which is affecting the local community that she represents.
Good Food Nation
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress Scotland is making towards becoming a good food nation. (S6O-05295)
Scotland is making excellent progress towards becoming a good food nation. I am delighted to note that “The First National Good Food Nation Plan” was laid in Parliament this morning and published online today at noon. The plan reflects the feedback from the wide-ranging consultation throughout its development and the input from parliamentary scrutiny. This is an important stage of our good food nation journey, and we will now turn our attention to the future development and implementation of the local authority and health board plans.
The good food nation plan has become nothing short of a fiasco. Although the plan has been laid, stakeholders do not agree with it and have concerns and questions about governance and accountability. The Scottish National Party promised that we would be a good food nation by 2025, but instead we see a failure to deliver, along with the neglect of food producers and limited effort to make use of widely available sustainable produce such as venison. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this is a case of the SNP overpromising and underdelivering?
I respect Pam Gosal, but what she has just outlined is complete and utter nonsense in regard to our good food nation plan as well as—[Interruption.]
Can members listen to both the questions and the responses in a respectful manner?
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Again, we have published our good food nation plan—the first of its kind—today. The work that we are doing in Scotland to become a good food nation is world leading. The plan underwent a great deal of scrutiny from a number of Scottish Parliament committees, all of which has been taken into consideration in the plan that we have published. We recognise that we need to implement the plan and know that that is important. It is the job of every minister in all the different portfolio areas across Government to work to deliver those outcomes.
Pam Gosal touched on a number of areas that are critically important, such as the role of our farmers and food producers. We want to ensure that more people in Scotland have access to their produce, which is a fundamental point that is made clear in our good food nation plan. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is progressing so much work to ensure that people have access to foods such as venison. Deer control has been talked about a lot during the passage of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Work is on-going on all those fronts, and I look forward to continuing to deliver on our first national good food nation plan.
The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee voted against the Good Food Nation (Specified Functions and Descriptions) (Scottish Ministers) Regulations 2025 on 3 December. Has the cabinet secretary now decided to change that legislation to meet the ambitions of stakeholders and have in place a good food nation plan that covers all aspects of food policy, including agriculture and fisheries, which were missing from the instrument, or is the refusal to do so the reason why members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee are now resigning?
I am disappointed that the committee did not support the affirmative statutory instrument at the recent meeting at which it was discussed, and it has since been withdrawn. We will continue to consider that and engage with stakeholders, as we have always done.
In the committee session at which we discussed that instrument, I hope that I was able to outline that, although some stakeholders wanted a broad-brush approach to the specified functions and descriptions, taking too broad an approach and covering only one generic policy area would not deliver the outcomes that we would all want to see, which are to have that difference and specific consideration by other portfolios across Government, to ensure that we are delivering on the plan’s outcomes. I can commit that we will continue to have those conversations. If changes need to be made, we will consider them, but it is for a very good reason that we set out our approach, which would have enacted and delivered the plan’s outcomes.
Land Reform (Land Justice)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent “ScotLand Futures” report, which found that 96 per cent of respondents believe that changes are needed regarding how land is owned and used, what steps it will take to ensure that land reform goes further than the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does to deliver land justice. (S6O-05296)
We welcome the Scottish Land Commission’s “ScotLand Futures” report and are considering its findings. The recently passed Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 represents a significant step forward in the land reform journey and delivers tangible improvements, such as lotting provisions and land management plans. Plans for implementation of the 2025 act are being developed, and we will continue to consult stakeholders to ensure that the provisions are as impactful as possible.
Alongside that, we are progressing work in other policy areas, including community right to buy and compulsory purchase, and we are considering compulsory sales orders. We are also addressing vacant and derelict land and exploring the role of taxation.
I am glad that the cabinet secretary has reflected on what further changes can be made, but, after the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed, many stakeholders and community groups were disappointed with the Scottish Government’s refusal to apply the bill’s lotting and public interest powers nationwide. As land justice is a nationwide issue, does the cabinet secretary agree that those crucial powers need to apply to land on a nationwide scale so that constituents across the country do not miss out?
I appreciate the point that Sarah Boyack has raised, but we added the measures to the bill that has now passed on the basis of the evidence that we had, and we need to have the evidence base in place when we develop policies or make proposals, to ensure that they will work when they are implemented.
We should bear in mind just how significant some of the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 are, and their implementation will be critical. Important amendments were agreed to at stage 3, particularly Martin Whitfield’s amendment on the review of the act, because we must ensure that we monitor things and learn lessons as the act is implemented. That will mean that we can improve and build on the measures that have been introduced.
Question 7 has been withdrawn.
Future Farming Investment Scheme (North East Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government how many farmers in the North East Scotland region have applied for the future farming investment scheme this year, including how many of those were unsuccessful. (S6O-05298)
Agricultural data are not collected for the North East Scotland region, because such data are not collected on the basis of Scottish parliamentary electoral regions. The Inverurie rural payments and inspections directorate agricultural area office region, which covers the north-east area, received 1,138 applications. Of those applications, 703 were eligible and 433 were assessed as not eligible, and a total of 326 applicants were offered a grant. A central mailbox for queries from unsuccessful applicants is being provided.
It seems that I am better informed than the minister, because I have the data and can tell him that, in the north-east, 85 per cent of applications were rejected. Nationwide, the scheme received more than 7,500 applications, but nearly half were ruled ineligible. The scheme gave applicants no reason for rejection and offered no right of appeal. Therefore, it looks as though the Government is overpromising and underdelivering.
The Scottish National Party voted down Scottish Conservative proposals that would have resulted in the scheme being reviewed and reported on and that would have provided applicants with transparency. Will the minister consider reopening the scheme? If so, how will he ensure that more small farms are successful and that those that are not successful understand why?
No, we will not be reopening the scheme, but we will shortly publish details of how the applications were assessed and provide information on why some applicants were not successful. As I said, members of the public can contact the rural payments and inspections directorate area office mailbox to seek general guidance and feedback on their application.
Farmers in the north-east have expressed concern that the Scottish Government is dragging its feet in reforming and rebasing agricultural support, such as that provided through the future farming investment scheme and the less favoured area support scheme. That means that young farmers are being cheated out of a fair deal and that small-scale, environmentally friendly and regenerative farming is being prevented from taking place in less favoured areas. Recently, I asked the minister whether future support for less favoured areas will be based on contemporary data or historical data, but I did not get an answer, so I will ask the question again. Will he ensure that future support is based on up-to-date information and data?
As I said to Mercedes Villalba previously, all those issues are being discussed and considered in the round as we take our systems forward. I take on board the point that we must give farmers the tools that they need and the certainty that they require.
Unfortunately, no certainty has been provided by the United Kingdom Government, which has caused problems through its inheritance tax changes, has not done anything to change the systems down south, has Barnettised the farming fund for Scotland and has taken away ring fencing. Therefore, I am afraid that under no circumstances can we take any lessons from the Labour Party on how to support farmers in Scotland.
The Scottish Government has maintained direct support, voluntary coupled support and LFASS payments, and it has provided a number of schemes to ensure that we protect farmers in Scotland, unlike that lot on the Labour benches or that lot on the Conservative benches.
Health and Social Care
We move to questions on the health and social care portfolio. I advise members that there is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions. If I am to get through them all, I will need brevity in questions and responses.
Loneliness (Health Impacts)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the health impacts of loneliness. (S6O-05299)
We recognise that loneliness can affect anyone, with negative impacts on health and wellbeing. It can be particularly difficult at this time of year. Our social isolation and loneliness strategy and delivery plan are supported by a dedicated three-year fund that provides £3.8 million to 53 community projects across Scotland. That is complemented by our investment of £81 million since 2021 in the communities mental health and wellbeing fund for adults, which includes awards for more than 4,500 projects that focus on reducing isolation and loneliness. Our mind to mind website and campaign also encourage people to talk to others about how they are feeling.
I thank the minister for that comprehensive response. He references the important health impacts that loneliness can have on an individual. It can quite literally be a killer.
We know that thousands of Scots, including many in our elderly community, in particular, will face the festive period alone. That is why the work of community groups such as the South West Arts and Music Project in my constituency is so vital. From its fun-time Fridays through to Christmas lunches and craft workshops, SWAMP ensures that our elderly know that they are always part of a community.
However, many organisations such as SWAMP face financial challenges. Will the minister acknowledge the important role that the third sector plays in tackling loneliness, the cost of which would otherwise be picked up by the national health service? Will he reflect that in the budget conversations that he is having with the finance secretary in the run-up to the Scottish budget?
I thank Humza Yousaf for raising that important issue. I join him in recognising how vital community projects are in helping to reduce isolation and loneliness for people across Scotland. On Tuesday, I saw the good work of the Willowacre Trust, in Cowlairs, in Glasgow, which helps people of all ages to connect. That is just one of thousands of projects that are being supported through our communities mental health and wellbeing fund.
With regard to looking towards the budget, in recognising the pressures that are facing the third sector, we are seeking to extend multiyear funding arrangements. I am delighted that, as part of the fairer funding pilot, we have already committed a further £15 million to our communities fund for next year.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.
For many people, Christmas is a time to enjoy precious moments with family and friends and reflect on the past year. However, for too many Scots, Christmas is a period of social isolation and loneliness, which are issues that I know all of us in the chamber care about deeply and want to address.
We have fantastic organisations across Glasgow and the rest of Scotland that provide vital support, such as Scottish Action for Mental Health’s nook and the Samaritans, which I encourage anyone who is struggling with low mood to reach out to. However, those organisations require adequate financial support to deliver their essential services. Will the Government discuss with SAMH the possibility of expanding the work that it does through its nook by providing Government funding?
We will need greater brevity in questions.
I thank Dr Gulhane for his question and for raising those important matters. We actively engage with SAMH. I had the privilege of visiting the nook in Glasgow a few weeks ago and I was hugely impressed. We want to see more interventions of that type in Scotland, as they play a vital role. I commend SAMH and the many other organisations that provide vital support, not just at this time of year but all year round.
Humza Yousaf mentioned the excellent example of SWAMP in our city, and it was great to hear that the minister visited the Willowacre Trust. Such organisations are critical, because around 60 per cent of Scots over the age of 50 experience loneliness most or all of the time, particularly at this time of year. The concern is that the funding of local organisations is so precarious that they do not know from one year to the next whether they will be able to continue their services.
Another example is the Alive and Kicking project in Springburn, which is putting on a special Hogmanay party for elderly people in the area, but it has just been through a hugely onerous process to secure three-year funding.
Please ask a question.
Will the minister do more to work with health and social care partnerships to ensure that the benefits of such services from a public health perspective are reflected?
The member raises important points about security of funding and its importance in enabling organisations to plan strategically. That is exactly why we have the fairer funding pilot and the communities fund, which I referred to in my earlier answers, and why we have committed that funding for next year. I undertake to convey in my routine engagements with health and social care partnerships the good points that the member makes, because they are well made.
We will need greater brevity in questions.
Health and Social Care Provision (Adaptation)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the population being expected to age rapidly over the coming decades, with more than one in five people soon to be of pension age, what measures it is taking to adapt health and social care provision to meet increased demand. (S6O-05300)
Through our service renewal framework and population health framework, we have set out a long-term approach for the reform and renewal of health and social care in Scotland. Those frameworks prioritise prevention and early intervention to reduce future demand. We will guide national planning to meet changing demographic needs while tackling health inequalities so that services remain sustainable and responsive for the whole population. Implementing those changes will deliver significant improvements in how people of all ages access and experience care and support across Scotland.
What role does the minister see for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence-assisted care planning, digital monitoring, robotics and telehealth in transforming health and social care for an ageing population? The minister will be well aware that Scotland has a uniquely long and substantial body of data on its healthcare, and of the integrity of that data.
What consideration is being given to the workforce skills that are required to support such technologies; to the role of colleges, such as Forth Valley College, in delivering the training; and to the opportunity that should exist for institutions to work in partnership with their local health boards in order to deliver those changes?
I thank Keith Brown for raising those important issues. I assure him that the Scottish Government views emerging technologies as key to a digital first approach. As is outlined in the service renewal framework, telecare, remote monitoring and digital prescribing will improve access, efficiency and integration, which will support the provision of care closer to home for an ageing population. Those innovations will require a workforce with the necessary training and digital tools, and we will work with academia and industry to ensure that our workforce is appropriately resourced with the necessary skills as new technologies and innovations emerge.
I welcome the fact that people in Scotland are living longer, but they are not always living in good health for longer. In East Ayrshire in my South Scotland region, the total burden of disease is estimated to have increased by 2.6 per cent between 2016 and 2019. Will the Government provide an update on the targeted work that it is doing to promote healthy living across Scotland, particularly in our more deprived communities?
That is a really important point. Of course, we are concerned not just with life expectancy, but with healthy life expectancy, and that is a key component of our population health framework. I assure Carol Mochan and the whole Parliament that that is a priority for the Government.
Domestic Abuse (Healthcare Professionals)
To ask the Scottish Government, following NHS domestic abuse awareness day, which took place on 10 December with the aim to shine a light on the high prevalence of domestic abuse affecting healthcare professionals, how it is supporting national health service boards to ensure that they have robust domestic abuse policies in place. (S6O-05301)
Domestic abuse is a violation of human rights and is totally unacceptable. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that NHS boards have robust domestic abuse guidance in place to address the issue. All boards are required to implement the national NHS Scotland gender-based violence workforce policy, which aims to provide sensitive and confidential support to employees who disclose that they are affected by domestic abuse.
Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government’s equally safe strategy is supporting NHS boards such as NHS Grampian to tackle gender-based violence?
Our equally safe strategy sets out a vision to prevent violence from occurring in the first place. It builds on the capability and capacity of support services, and it strengthens the justice response to victims and perpetrators. The role of the equally safe strategy is to define violence against women, to set out the scale of the problem and to take an agreed approach to addressing that problem across spheres of government and the statutory and community and voluntary sectors. Its vision for change recognises that NHS boards are at the heart of that, and a number of commitments within the equally safe delivery plan are aimed at supporting health boards.
We are working with a range of partners to improve the training for staff, including the health workforce, on all forms of violence against women. The delivery plan also outlines the work that we are doing with partners to continue to raise public awareness of NHS sexual assault response co-ordination services and to promote updated guidance for healthcare professionals on how to respond to a disclosure of rape or sexual assault.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will welcome the announcement by the United Kingdom Government of specialist NHS support for domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors. It is essential to have trauma-informed specialist healthcare pathways, as their needs often fall between criminal justice, health and safeguarding systems. Is the cabinet secretary considering adopting a similar approach, given the recent concern about grooming gangs?
Sexual assault, like any form of sexual violence, is completely unacceptable and must not be tolerated. It is incumbent on boards, in the first instance, to ensure that their staff and patients are supported so that they can report it when it takes place. Of course, I welcome any steps that are taken in any jurisdiction to improve the situation for people who are victims of sexual violence or domestic violence, so that they are able to report it and so that the police can respond accordingly. I will respond in writing to Jackie Baillie on the steps that we are taking in Scotland.
Third Sector Support for the National Health Service
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the role of the third sector in ensuring the sustainability of the national health service. (S6O-05302)
We recognise the essential role that is played by the community and voluntary sector in supporting communities across Scotland and in supporting the delivery of the Scottish Government’s priorities. Community and voluntary partners are embedded across all aspects of Government policy, and the importance of the sector is reflected in our vision for public service reform and population health. As Mr Arthur set out earlier, we acknowledge that the sector needs stability and an opportunity for longer-term planning and development to support its sustainability and ability to continue to meet the needs of communities in the longer term.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s support for the third sector, because many manifestos, including that of Voluntary Health Scotland, call for third sector parity in service commissioning. That is crucial for NHS sustainability. For example, Morven day services, in my region, receives no health and social care partnership funding despite having delivered nearly 11,000 hours of peer support, therapy and activities since January—worth £170,000 if billed. Like many third sector organisations, Morven faces closure next year without long-term sustainable funding. Does the cabinet secretary agree that losing such services would further strain an already unsustainable NHS? How will the Scottish Government ensure the sustainability of crucial community services such as Morven day services?
I thank Mr Whittle for raising the concerns of what appears to be a very strong community organisation in his region that provides support to people in the community and, undeniably, support for the health service.
I routinely ensure that partnership working, which I have spoken about and which Mr Arthur was speaking about in terms of longer-term sustainability, is absolutely embedded not just in health boards but, I expect, in integration joint boards—although I do not have the same locus in IJBs as I do in health boards.
Some of our community and voluntary organisations can reach people and provide services that our statutory organisations often cannot. We should be looking to provide that mix while supporting such well-run organisations to support our people and, through more preventative activity, move to better population health that will come through from the population health framework.
I am sure that Mr Whittle recognises that asking for sustainability in our NHS means voting for it. He and his colleagues did not vote for the record funding that the Scottish National Party Scottish Government delivered for our health and social care system in 2025-26. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on the Tories to recognise the profound positive impact that the more than £21 billion of funding for health and social care has delivered for the people of Scotland this year alone while the Tories sat on their hands?
I agree. We are making good progress in transforming Scotland’s health services. Last year we delivered a record number of hip and knee operations. The number of long waits over 52 weeks has reduced for five consecutive months, and we performed more operations, the number of which has been at its highest level since January 2020. That is thanks to the tireless work of our outstanding NHS staff. We are also delivering thousands more appointments and procedures this year, and there are downward trends across nearly all waiting list indicators.
Health is at the heart of our budget, which provided record funding of £21.7 billion to health and social care in 2025-26. To protect the NHS’s long-term future sustainability, we plan to invest in a range of reforms, including shifting care from acute to community settings, investing an additional £531 million in general practice over three years and expanding hospital at home capacity to 2,000 beds—to give just three examples.
Last week, I met staff and volunteers at Accord Hospice, which runs the Renfrewshire bereavement network. The network provides vital support to people who are experiencing loss or dealing with grief. The service is free at the point of use and works with minimal wait for people.
Despite the high demand for its service, Accord is concerned about there being no secure commitment to funding from the health and social care partnership, which could potentially put the service at risk. That is exacerbated by a 7 per cent reduction in overall hospice funding from Renfrewshire HSCP this year.
Does the minister agree that organisations such as Accord Hospice are best placed to deliver such specialist services and that we should do everything that we can to protect them and their funding?
As Mr Bibby will know, those decisions are made locally, which they need to be. I am very familiar with the work of Accord Hospice, as I am with the hospice network. I am in the fortunate position of having a remarkable hospice in my constituency, as well, so I recognise and understand the invaluable contribution that they make and I encourage all our health boards and IJB partners to support the hospice network. That is why we have invested additional money and resources into hospice funding—to give support for pay parity, for example—and why we will continue to work with the sector.
Although I do not comment directly on the individual case that Mr Bibby raises—for obvious reasons in relation to local decision making—I hope that that gives him some assurance of the Government’s support for the sector.
Neurodevelopmental Conditions (Provision)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland on its proposal, “The future of provision for neurodevelopmental conditions”. (S6O-05303)
The Scottish Government welcomes the report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on future provision for neurodevelopmental support in Scotland. I agree that demand for neurodevelopmental assessment and support now far exceeds what Scotland’s mental health infrastructure can deliver and that a different response is needed.
The Scottish Government is committed to driving forward improvements to address that complex issue. To support us in that work, the royal college is a member of our children and young people’s neurodevelopmental task force, and it participated in the cross-party summit on neurodevelopmental support that I hosted on 15 December.
The summit brought together people from clinical services, education, the Government, academia and policy. What key points were raised at the summit? How will the voice of people with lived experience be heard in relation to that issue, and where will it implement policy?
At Scotland’s first summit on neurodevelopmental support—held, as I said, on 15 December—the focus was on improving our shared understanding of the complexity of neurodevelopmental needs and the actions that are required to improve access to timely, consistent and neuro-affirming support. I was pleased that there was political consensus on a number of issues, and I am considering how we take that forward. Lived experience was shared generously by neurodivergent attendees, and I will ensure that neurodivergent people, their families and front-line staff continue to inform and shape our policy approach.
In Scotland, 30 per cent of adults live in areas where they are unable to get a neurodevelopmental assessment. It is not that demand is outstripping supply; in many parts of the country, there is no supply. Why will the minister not treat this much more urgently than he currently is doing? It is an urgent situation.
I assure Mr Rennie that I treat the matter with the utmost urgency. I was grateful to his colleague Alex Cole-Hamilton for participating in the summit on Monday, and I recognise that the summit arose from a commitment from the Government that was made during a debate that the Liberal Democrats secured.
It is an area in which I really want to build political consensus. That was evident at the summit on Monday. I would be more than happy to engage directly with Mr Rennie on the national or local picture, and I want to leave him in no doubt of the priority that I attach to the matter.
Community First Responders
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the work of community first responders. (S6O-05304)
Scottish Ambulance Service community first responders play a critical role in saving the lives of people across Scotland and I—and the Scottish Government—support them whole-heartedly.
The Scottish Ambulance Service has full operational responsibility for community first responder schemes. In 2025-26, the Scottish Government increased the Scottish Ambulance Service’s budget to £437.2 million—an increase of £88 million on the previous year—which will see continued investment in almost 150 of those life-saving schemes.
Community first responders in the Highlands and Islands are crucial and often bridge the gap when it comes to difficulties with distance or resourcing in rural and island communities. However, many have reported to me that barriers to carrying out that role are increasing with time—from difficulties securing the correct insurance to being unable to access training courses or administer emergency medication such as EpiPens. Can the Scottish Government do more to support those vital volunteers?
I absolutely recognise the importance of community first responders in our rural and island areas. I had the pleasure of meeting some community first responders who are based on Islay at this summer’s Islay, Jura and Colonsay show, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the roles that they play. In January, I will host a round-table meeting on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, which will include the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service.
It is important to recognise that, when community first responders respond to calls, they are covered by Scottish Ambulance Service insurance. Some schemes, with the support of their communities, have developed beyond the core model and secured their own vehicles, equipment and funding. It is understood that it is their responsibility to source business cover and suitable training. If Emma Roddick would like, I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue.
Bleed kits ease pressure on first responders by allowing bystanders to prevent a potentially fatal loss of blood from occurring while they wait for a responder to arrive. However, there are nowhere near enough bleed kits in Scotland. Will the minister explain what the Scottish Government is doing to increase the number of bleed kits in Scotland?
I recognise the importance of the provision of bleed kits across Scotland, which I have been speaking to a number of people about, and I would be happy to follow up on the issue with Mr Choudhury in writing.
Influenza Admissions (Support for National Health Service)
I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting NHS boards, in light of the increase in hospital admissions of people affected by influenza. (S6O-05305)
One of the most important things that we can do to support NHS boards is to make sure that people stay healthy and attend hospital only when it is absolutely necessary.
In addition, our vaccination programme is vital in tackling flu this season, and we work closely with boards to make vaccination as accessible as possible. We do that by supporting national resources and funded initiatives, such as mobile vaccination units. Our nationally funded programmes, such as virtual hospitals and flow navigation models, also support boards to enable people to get the right care in the right place and reduce unnecessary visits to accident and emergency.
As the cabinet secretary said in his answer, we know that one of the best ways of preventing influenza infection is to get vaccinated. How is the Government supporting health and social care staff to increase their uptake of the vaccine this year?
Presiding Officer, I thank Clare Haughey for her question, because it offers me the opportunity, in one of my final contributions before Christmas, to wish you and other colleagues a merry Christmas and, most importantly, to thank our health and social care staff for their service and sacrifice over the festive period, which is greatly appreciated by us all. I hope that I speak on behalf of the whole Parliament when I say that.
This winter, additional measures have been introduced to boost uptake among health and social care workers, including digital prompts and tailored communication materials to encourage vaccination. Along with the chief medical officer, I have written to system leaders to request continued support in making access to vaccination easy for staff, and most health boards now provide peer-to-peer vaccination in workplaces and drop-in clinics for convenience. The vaccination programme is also working with professional bodies to reinforce that message through blogs and social media. The fact that uptake in those vital groups continues to rise as the programme progresses reflects those strong collaborative efforts.
The message is clear: protect yourself, your loved ones and our services this winter by taking up the vaccine if you are eligible to do so.
Walk-in General Practitioner Clinics
To ask the Scottish Government what criteria will be used to evaluate its pilot programme for walk-in GP clinics, including whether stakeholders representing GPs and other health professionals will have been involved in defining these criteria. (S6O-05306)
The Scottish Government will evaluate the walk-in service pilots by drawing on the clear set of characteristics that were used to select proposals in the first instance, which include areas such as impact on access, patient experience, wider system performance and overall cost-effectiveness and scalability. Those characteristics will underpin the national governance and evaluation framework for the pilots. GPs and other stakeholders have been involved in shaping that work to date, and they will continue to be closely engaged as the pilot programme is established and evaluated.
More or less as soon as the policy was announced, it received significant pushback from GPs and other health professionals who said not only that it would be a poor investment but that it would actually risk worsening health inequalities. As far as I am aware, the British Medical Association had the opportunity to discuss the issue only the day before it was announced, and the Royal College of General Practitioners was unable to discuss it until two days after it was announced, which means that those organisations have not had the opportunity to shape the Government’s thinking. Further, as far as I am aware, they will not have the opportunity to shape the evaluation criteria, either.
Can the cabinet secretary assure us that the expertise of the people who are delivering these services will be taken seriously, and that GP services will be treated as something more important than a conference gimmick?
The widespread welcome of the policy announcement on the part of the public is testament to the policy’s popularity. I have engaged directly with the BMA and the Royal College of GPs. I understand their concerns regarding continuity of care and the potential for health inequalities to be exacerbated. I want to ensure that the reverse is true, and that we can address health inequalities through the establishment of GP walk-in clinics and that we can make our services more accessible and flexible for people to use while maintaining their continuity of care. That is why I continue to insist on the involvement of not only boards but GPs in the design and evaluation of the system.
With apologies to members I was unable to call, that concludes portfolio questions on health and social care.
Air adhart
Protecting Children From Harm