Seòmar agus comataidhean

Not only are we witnessing the most appalling scandal in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, but in NHS Tayside, we have the destruction of 40 clinical logbooks in the Eljamel case, despite the issuing of do-not-destroy notices, plus more revelations about serious blunders in jaw surgery. In NHS Forth Valley and NHS Grampian, we have on-going patient complaints about missing documents and non-compliance with statutory complaint procedures.

Those are all examples of the most serious failings of management in different health boards that are the direct responsibility of the Scottish Government. Will the First Minister finally accept that the cultural problem that he has identified in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is the exact same cultural problem that has existed in this Government for years and that it is preventing patients from getting to the truth?

To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to young athletes who will be representing Scotland in sport in 2026. (S6O-05441)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve transparency and accountability within NHS boards. (S6F-04616)

That is all very good stuff, but last month I received representations from three different constituents whose daughters have been selected to represent Scotland in volleyball and hockey. They told me that there is no dedicated funding available to cover the costs of travel, accommodation and competition expenses. That has also been a recent issue with women’s cricket.

Does the minister agree that this is an unacceptable situation for those who are selected to represent their country? Will some of the budget uplift that she mentioned go towards addressing that situation?

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is putting in place to encourage young people to engage in the arts. (S6O-05409)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary followed closely the recent evidence that the Finance and Public Administration Committee took from five performing arts companies. At that session, Alex Reedijk of Scottish Opera said:

“It is interesting that we see a trend and increasing evidence that teachers no longer have the skills to deliver elements of the creative part of the curriculum”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 13 January 2026; c 10.]

What discussions is this cabinet secretary having with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to address that serious concern?

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I concur with everything that Carol Mochan has just said. Sarah Boyack is not only a long-standing member of the Scottish Parliament but someone who has served her constituents—and the stakeholders whom she has represented, particularly on the issues that are before us today—extremely well.

On a personal basis, I understand exactly what it is like to take a member’s bill through the Scottish Parliament, especially one that runs for a very long time. You get knocked back, you try something else, and you get knocked back again. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the difficulties that Sarah Boyack has encountered. I put on record again, having said it when bringing forward my own bill, that the non-Government bills unit is outstanding. I am sure that Sarah Boyack has gained a great deal from its expertise.

I agree with Sarah Boyack on the background context of her bill. There has been a long-standing need for a much more holistic approach to policy making—she is absolutely right on that. I also agree that public bodies have often operated under short-termism, which Mr Harvie also referred to, because of the constraints of one-year budgets. It is essential that we make much better use of scarce resources, and there are definitely concerns about the national performance framework.

I took the trouble to read some of the submissions in response to the call for views on the bill. I think that most people agree with that background context, and I very much understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from with her bill. However, I am sceptical about various aspects of it, and I want to sound those out.

On section 3, I think that Sarah Boyack made a valiant attempt to define the terms “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”. I give credit to her for that, because it has made us think. However, as my colleague Roz McCall said, it is extremely difficult to put such terms into legislation with definitive and comprehensive meanings for them, because they are multifaceted concepts that touch on emotional, cultural, mental and physical health, as well as social and environmental safeguards. It is therefore difficult to find a balance of those complexities that would suit all individuals, whether now or in the future.

There has been much discussion about the recommendation to establish a commissioner. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the issue of commissioners in considerable detail. It was one of the most interesting aspects of parliamentary business that I have participated in. We were very conscious not just of the increasing number of commissioners, but of the associated costs—as one would expect of a finance committee. As somebody who has been representing patients on the Eljamel inquiry, I have heard a lot of discussion about the absence of commissioners when public bodies fail.

I understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from, because there has been failure, but I do not think that that means that there is a need for new legislation. However, there is a need for the Government and public bodies to take responsibility for decision making. If they get things wrong, they should be held accountable. I do not think that we are seeing enough of that, which is why I am very sceptical about the need for another commissioner.

I will finish on the basis that it is always difficult when we are contemplating new legislation. It takes a great deal of effort and time to go through all the relevant evidence, and when there are differences of opinion, it is not always about the different parts of the evidence but about the process, and Sarah Boyack has perhaps run into a bit of difficulty on that basis. There should be processes that are workable. The fact that they are not workable and have not been doing their job is not a fault of the legislation but a fault of the people who are in charge of that.

On that basis, I will finish my remarks.

15:31

I am sure that the cabinet secretary followed closely the recent evidence that the Finance and Public Administration Committee took from five performing arts companies. At that session, Alex Reedijk of Scottish Opera said:

“It is interesting that we see a trend and increasing evidence that teachers no longer have the skills to deliver elements of the creative part of the curriculum”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 13 January 2026; c 10.]

What discussions is this cabinet secretary having with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to address that serious concern?

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I concur with everything that Carol Mochan has just said. Sarah Boyack is not only a long-standing member of the Scottish Parliament but someone who has served her constituents—and the stakeholders whom she has represented, particularly on the issues that are before us today—extremely well.

On a personal basis, I understand exactly what it is like to take a member’s bill through the Scottish Parliament, especially one that runs for a very long time. You get knocked back, you try something else, and you get knocked back again. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the difficulties that Sarah Boyack has encountered. I put on record again, having said it when bringing forward my own bill, that the non-Government bills unit is outstanding. I am sure that Sarah Boyack has gained a great deal from its expertise.

I agree with Sarah Boyack on the background context of her bill. There has been a long-standing need for a much more holistic approach to policy making—she is absolutely right on that. I also agree that public bodies have often operated under short-termism, which Mr Harvie also referred to, because of the constraints of one-year budgets. It is essential that we make much better use of scarce resources, and there are definitely concerns about the national performance framework.

I took the trouble to read some of the submissions in response to the call for views on the bill. I think that most people agree with that background context, and I very much understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from with her bill. However, I am sceptical about various aspects of it, and I want to sound those out.

On section 3, I think that Sarah Boyack made a valiant attempt to define the terms “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”. I give credit to her for that, because it has made us think. However, as my colleague Roz McCall said, it is extremely difficult to put such terms into legislation with definitive and comprehensive meanings for them, because they are multifaceted concepts that touch on emotional, cultural, mental and physical health, as well as social and environmental safeguards. It is therefore difficult to find a balance of those complexities that would suit all individuals, whether now or in the future.

There has been much discussion about the recommendation to establish a commissioner. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the issue of commissioners in considerable detail. It was one of the most interesting aspects of parliamentary business that I have participated in. We were very conscious not just of the increasing number of commissioners, but of the associated costs—as one would expect of a finance committee. As somebody who has been representing patients on the Eljamel inquiry, I have heard a lot of discussion about the absence of commissioners when public bodies fail.

I understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from, because there has been failure, but I do not think that that means that there is a need for new legislation. However, there is a need for the Government and public bodies to take responsibility for decision making. If they get things wrong, they should be held accountable. I do not think that we are seeing enough of that, which is why I am very sceptical about the need for another commissioner.

I will finish on the basis that it is always difficult when we are contemplating new legislation. It takes a great deal of effort and time to go through all the relevant evidence, and when there are differences of opinion, it is not always about the different parts of the evidence but about the process, and Sarah Boyack has perhaps run into a bit of difficulty on that basis. There should be processes that are workable. The fact that they are not workable and have not been doing their job is not a fault of the legislation but a fault of the people who are in charge of that.

On that basis, I will finish my remarks.

15:31

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is putting in place to encourage young people to engage in the arts. (S6O-05409)