Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.
Glen Prosen (Forestry and Land Scotland Purchase)
To ask the Scottish Government what the return has been on any anticipated community, biodiversity and environmental outcomes resulting from the £17.6 million public purchase of Glen Prosen by Forestry and Land Scotland. (S6O-03685)
The acquisition at Glen Prosen links neighbouring parcels of public land and provides opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Forestry and Land Scotland is working on creating new woodland and montane scrub, restoring peatlands and rivers, improving biodiversity and ensuring resilience to climate change. Preparatory work over the past 20 months has included carrying out ecological surveys to better understand the landscape and guide interventions; extensive public, community and stakeholder consultation; clearing windblow; and beginning deer management and fencing. The land management plan is expected to be produced next year.
Forestry and Land Scotland is pursuing promising opportunities to create new jobs and economic benefits, including proposals for a tree nursery, an education offer, a manufacturing business, a recreation proposition, a field studies centre and plans for residential use.
That is certainly one way to look at the matter. Local reports say that, since FLS outbid private bidders a couple of years ago, the top of the glen has, in effect, become depopulated. Families have been turfed out of their homes, which lie abandoned and decaying, and the local school is at risk of closure. Angus already has a problem with rural depopulation and mothballed schools. Meanwhile, the deer population is virtually extinct on unmanaged heather moorland.
What precisely is the Scottish Government doing to turn the situation around? Does the cabinet secretary agree that the experiment should never be repeated in Angus?
First, we need to set some facts straight in relation to some of the completely baseless claims that Liam Kerr just made. He made an accusation about the houses being in disrepair. The houses, as well as the other built assets that exist in Glen Prosen, are in good condition and are actively maintained. They currently provide homes for two families. An expressions-of-interest exercise engaged the market on ideas for the future development of the wider portfolio of built assets. Discussions are now under way with interested parties about the possibility of a range of future uses that would lead to community benefits. Local communities have also been fully engaged in the land management plan process.
Liam Kerr also levelled an accusation about the employees of the estate, and it is important to set the record straight on that. The seller who previously had Glen Prosen ran it as a sporting estate but wound down the business, which included making the workforce redundant. Termination of the previous employment was undertaken by the seller with no involvement of FLS, and the full-time employees had service occupancy agreements for their homes.
There were five full-time employees and one part-time employee at Glen Prosen prior to the sale, and FLS engaged with them as soon as it was able to do so. Two of the former estate employees moved on before the acquisition was completed, and the part-time role ended when the business activities of the estate were wound up. Upon FLS acquiring the estate, three former estate employees were given tenancies. One has since moved on, another has a part-time contract with FLS on the estate and the last is employed elsewhere but continues as a tenant.
I hope that that clarifies the situation for Mr Kerr.
Will the cabinet secretary set out the strategic value of acquiring Glen Prosen with regard to the outcomes mentioned? Will any specific proposals for the management of the land be subject to a form of consultation?
I thank Colin Beattie for asking that important question and for allowing me the opportunity to set that out.
The Angus glens project, which includes Glen Prosen, involves a strategic cluster of land in the Cairngorms national park, which offers scope to deliver on the Scottish Government’s commitment to nature recovery and climate resilience, as well as to benefit people through the economic, educational, social and wellbeing opportunities that are being considered. The project is large and will take time to deliver, but it is of crucial importance to tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis that we face.
I assure Colin Beattie and other members that FLS has been actively engaging and consulting on the terms of the draft land management plan with all local stakeholders, especially the local community, neighbouring landowners and land managers. That will continue during the finalisation of the plan for the area, and it will ensure that the potential opportunities that the acquisition will afford are understood and provided for.
Let us get the facts and figures correct. Expenditure at Glen Prosen has outstripped income by 25 per cent, 18 members of FLS seem to be floating around and consulting on various things, and we still do not have a management plan two and a half years after the purchase. What is the promise for this autumn? Will the plan be delivered, or is it still as far away as it seemed to be in August?
I do not know whether Edward Mountain listened to my previous responses, in which I outlined when the land management plan would be coming forward. As I have also already outlined in my previous responses, there is no getting around the fact that this is a very large project. FLS wants engagement to take place to ensure that the land management plan is made in consultation with the local communities. That takes time, as do all the various other assessments that have to be undertaken as part of the process. I have said that the plan will come out next year, and there will be engagement as part of that.
Animal Welfare
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support animal welfare. (S6O-03686)
The Scottish Government is fully committed to improving and protecting the welfare of animals in Scotland. We have delivered, or are on course to deliver, several of our programme for government commitments, including consulting on extending licensing legislation to animal care services, consulting on phasing out cages for laying hens and banning the export of livestock for fattening or slaughter.
We are committed to working with our United Kingdom counterparts to deliver welfare improvements whenever it is appropriate to do so. However, we will not hesitate to act independently if it is needed in order to improve animal welfare.
The minister will be aware of my long-standing concerns about the safety and treatment of greyhounds that are used in racing. Shawfield stadium in my constituency was the last licensed track in Scotland, but, thankfully, no races have taken place since the pandemic. In my view, and that of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, as well as that of numerous other animal welfare organisations, greyhound racing is inherently unsafe, so I believe that a phased ban is required sooner rather than later. Will the minister provide an update on any representations that he has had in recent months with stakeholders regarding greyhound racing?
There have been no meetings to discuss greyhound racing in recent months, but I understand that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will report on petition PE1758, which calls for an end to greyhound racing in Scotland, and Mr Ruskell’s bill is to be introduced. I will consider both carefully before deciding on how to proceed.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a farmer.
One of the increasing threats to livestock welfare is attacks from dogs. Despite the introduction of harsher penalties in November 2021, livestock worrying continues to be an issue across rural Scotland. What more can the Government do to address that issue? Will there be a commitment to reviewing the Scottish outdoor access code, as Scotland’s Rural College has recommended?
I know that the issue has been raised before, but we will have to consider balancing that with allowing people to have a right of responsible access. Mr Eagle rightly points out that livestock worrying is a disaster for livestock farmers in Scotland. The fact that the Scottish Government supported Emma Harper’s livestock worrying bill was a crucial step forward. We now have a maximum penalty of a fine of up to £40,000 or jail, so we are taking the issue very seriously.
I and other members of the Government continue to put out the message that we should keep our dogs under control, particularly when they are among livestock, because they should not be there.
The greyhound racing industry’s governing body recorded that more than 100 dogs died and more than 4,000 were injured while racing at regulated tracks in England and Wales last year. Does the minister recognise that the nature of that activity, with dogs running against each other at speeds of up to 40mph around sharp bends, leads to a similar rate of collision at any track, regardless of whether it be in Newcastle or Fife?
I recognise that the member has a long-standing concern about greyhound racing. As I have said, we will wait to see the result of the petition and the member’s bill, and we will take our decisions from there.
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Correspondence)
To ask the Scottish Government what interaction and correspondence it has had, regarding matters related to Scotland’s rural economy, with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including relevant officials, since their appointment in July. (S6O-03687)
I have met Steve Reed, the new UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, once so far, when we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest. My officials regularly meet his officials.
I welcome the resetting of the relationship between Scottish and UK Government ministers that has taken place since the general election, and the reinstigation of the interministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, which will meet for the first time in a year on 16 September. I look forward to continuing to build a more open and, I hope, constructive relationship in the coming months.
Even this city boy knows that agriculture is a long-term endeavour, with plans sometimes being made years in advance. So far, the new UK Government has not said very much about future funding, which has led to concerns that there is not enough clarity and certainty, and that the new UK Government might be just as bad as the previous UK Government.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to write to the UK Government well ahead of the UK budget to reiterate the calls for clarity and certainty over future funding settlements, which both the industry and the Scottish National Party have said that Scotland’s agriculture sector needs?
Bob Doris raises a hugely important matter. As he will undoubtedly be aware, no commitment to agriculture funding has been made by the UK Government beyond next year. The UK Government must commit to urgent, meaningful engagement on a future multiyear programme funding settlement to provide the certainty and assurance that are needed in order for us to be able to deliver future agriculture policies.
The uncertainty that has been created by the lack of clarity is having a direct impact now. An opportunity has been missed to deliver public good and to take urgent measures to meet the current and future climate change emissions reduction targets for Scotland and the wider UK. I intend to raise the issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when we meet at the IMG meeting on Monday.
Deer Management Incentive Scheme Pilots (Rainforest Exclusion)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason rainforests were excluded from the deer management incentive scheme pilots. (S6O-03688)
The purpose of the pilots is to explore incentives for deer management in different local circumstances. The pilots were designed around a number of criteria, including access to data on current cull levels and the potential barriers to increasing deer management. The focus of the pilots is on red deer in Cairngorms national park, roe deer in the central belt and sika deer in south Loch Ness.
We also provide support for projects that help to restore and expand Scotland’s rainforests, as part of which funding is available to reduce deer impacts, alongside other activities, including rhododendron control.
The minister will know that deer are a natural part of the rainforest ecosystem, but the increasing number of deer and their mobility mean that they are one of the main barriers to rainforest restoration.
Given that the Scottish Government has committed to restoring Scotland’s rainforests, I ask the minister to reconsider his current position and to ensure that the deer management incentive scheme will be extended to key rainforest locations.
We will not expand the current pilot scheme, but it is part of a package of looking at how we will manage deer across the whole country. Rainforests are crucial to what we will look at as we go forward.
Although the deer management incentive scheme pilots are looking at a specific set of circumstances, Graham Simpson can be assured that rainforests are very much part of our longer-term thinking.
Does the minister agree that deer management plans should consider biodiversity? What progress is being made towards reintroducing Scotland’s native Eurasian lynx to help to control deer populations naturally, as has successfully happened over the past 50 years in Austria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland, without any adverse impact on people, pets or livestock?
There are no intentions to allow the introduction of lynx in Scotland.
Galloway National Park
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to ensure that any future Galloway national park will work in the best interests of local communities. (S6O-03689)
If there is to be a new national park in Galloway, it must be focused on helping to meet the needs of local communities. NatureScot has begun its investigation into the proposal, which will involve extensive public consultation.
We want local people, communities and businesses to have their say on whether Galloway should become Scotland’s next national park, as well as on what role a new park could play in supporting economic growth, community development, visitor management and environmental protection.
When we receive NatureScot’s report next spring, we will carefully consider its findings before setting out or deciding on any next steps.
As it has taken the Government two years to get the nomination for a national park on the table, and almost 10 years for the Galloway National Park Association to make its case, does the cabinet secretary feel that sufficient time has been given to NatureScot to prepare a consultation document, which it will then have only 12 weeks to consult on, not to mention that those 12 weeks will take in Christmas and new year? I am aware that there would be further consultation if the Scottish Government then decides to designate, but that would be only on the finer detail.
Given that the national park designation will have significant impacts that will last generations, does the cabinet secretary agree that the people of Galloway should be given a significantly longer opportunity to make their feelings known, even if that pushes the decision to designate, or not, and any subsequent legislation, into the next parliamentary session?
I understand the concern that Finlay Carson raises in relation to the issue. That is why I have set out that the period of investigation and reporting that NatureScot is undertaking is hugely important, and why I encourage everybody who lives in the proposed area to ensure that they have their say.
I believe that the timeframe that has been set out is enough time. As I set out in a response to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee this morning, although there is a formal consultation time, as of yesterday, NatureScot has published an online resource that sets out where all that information will be available and how people will be able to have their say. I also know that there will be a number of engagement and other events outwith that consultation that communities can attend to ensure that they make their voice known and heard.
I will not commit at this stage to extending a process when I do not know whether that will be needed. I am happy to consider that as we move through the investigation, if it appears that more time may be needed. However, again, I think that it can be delivered within the timeframe, which is why it has been set out as it is. I encourage everyone to take part.
I reiterate that the Galloway national park proposal has caused controversy locally, with my office receiving more than 200 representations of people’s views. It is important that communities, small and large, are consulted so that their voices are heard and that any decision that is taken works in the best interests of Galloway’s diverse communities.
Will the cabinet secretary provide further assurance that NatureScot will come to all communities in the region and speak to everyone who would like to be heard?
I say at the outset that I fully agree that every community in Dumfries and Galloway should be able to have their say on the proposal as to whether to establish a national park. As I outlined in my previous answer, yesterday, NatureScot launched a dedicated information website and online engagement hub for local residents and communities to find out more information.
I know that NatureScot is planning further engagement later this month, when it will be issuing a leaflet to all households within and close to the proposed area, explaining what the consultation process will involve as well as explaining how people can take part. Information will be available on NatureScot’s website.
Everyone with an interest will be able to make their views known through the consultation paper. There will also be surveys and a series of public meetings, events and drop-in surgeries. There will also be engagement and events with local businesses and organisations, community councils, young people and equality groups.
I hope that that provides the assurance that Emma Harper and other members who represent the south of Scotland are looking for.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in many ways, we have a blank sheet of paper here, that there is no single model of a national park, and that local people should take part in the consultation not only to give their view on whether they support it, but to shape the powers, boundary and vision of any proposed Galloway national park?
If the Government decides to go ahead with the proposal, will she give an assurance that any national park will be made in Galloway, for the people of Galloway?
Yes. I absolutely give that assurance. I thank Colin Smyth for raising that hugely important point.
Our current national parks are very different from each other. Again, the proposal would be starting from a blank sheet of paper in relation to the overall powers that the park would have, such as those over planning. There are issues around what the boundary looks like that could be discussed. Galloway is obviously of a very different nature from our other national park areas, as agriculture is so vital to the area as a whole. It is vital that all that is recognised.
I absolutely encourage everyone who lives in the proposed area in Galloway to have their say through the events that I mentioned. All that information will be published and circulated to them.
Agriculture-supporting Infrastructure (Remote and Island Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact its recently announced budget reductions will have on investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture in remote and island communities. (S6O-03690)
The rural affairs, land reform and islands—RALRI—portfolio has supported the response to financial pressures by identifying small reductions, but none of those relate to investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture in rural and island communities.
We continue to invest in agricultural communities. Last week, we announced that support payments of more than £243 million will start to be paid to more than 11,500 farming businesses.
We are also driving an ambitious programme of vessel and infrastructure upgrades and replacements in the coming years, including port projects that are near completion, the six major vessels that are currently under construction and the seven small vessels that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is progressing through procurement.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business. On back British farming day, I thank farmers across the country, and particularly those from my region of the Highlands and Islands, for all that they do.
It is now more than six years since Orkney’s abattoir closed and, despite the efforts of local stakeholders and warm words from the Scottish Government, no solution has yet been found for a new facility. Local abattoirs play an important role in supporting local rural businesses in agriculture, ensuring animal welfare and reducing food miles.
On back British farming day, will the minister advise whether the Scottish Government is playing any role in supporting the establishment of a new abattoir in Orkney?
The loss of small abattoirs across the country has been a huge issue, and I fully accept that I was concerned about the issue long before I came to the Scottish Parliament. I am prepared to meet Jamie Halcro Johnston to discuss the Orkney issue specifically. Funding has gone in from the small producers pilot fund, but I do not want to specify where that will go. However, I absolutely take on board the fact that we have an issue with small abattoirs.
The minister will be aware that auction marts are beginning to leave islands, forcing island farmers and crofters to take their livestock off island to sell. That means that they accept lower prices, because otherwise they have to take those animals back on island. What can he do to help islands to continue to have their auction marts locally, so that they can sell their animals at the highest price?
Unfortunately, agricultural markets are private businesses that take commercial decisions. However, the rural economy is absolutely founded on livestock markets. The auction houses that I have dealt with know that they have a responsibility to ensure that island communities can continue to trade. I am happy to have a conversation with Rhoda Grant and the auction market in question if there is a specific issue.
It has been suggested that local abattoirs are an integral part of the infrastructure that supports our farming community. Orkney has felt keenly the loss of the abattoir in the islands, but there are plans to develop a more bespoke abattoir, and assessments have been made of its viability.
I echo the plea that the minister has already received that he engages with that and ensures that the Scottish Government gives whatever support it can to the delivery of an abattoir that is much needed in the islands that I represent.
I give the assurance that I am more than happy to meet Liam McArthur, and I am absolutely prepared to engage in whatever we can do to support any small abattoir.
Procurement (Healthy and Local Food)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how its procurement powers can encourage the availability of healthy, local food. (S6O-03691)
The Scottish Government recognises that public procurement plays a key role in ensuring that everyone has access to healthy, fresh and seasonal food. That understanding is reflected in our draft good food nation plan, which outlines how we seek to maximise the impact that procurement can have through the application of relevant legislation and policy.
Our cross-cutting approach is also supported by the ministerial working group on food, which enables ministers to work collectively to drive cross-portfolio engagement on food-related issues and ensure that food policy is co-ordinated and cohesive.
Many third sector organisations, such as Grow 73 in my region, do great work and support local healthy food provision. They often rely on commissioned grants from the Scottish Government or from local government. I ask the cabinet secretary for her assurance that her Government is using all the powers in its control to support the procurement of good local food, and I ask her to give a guarantee that third sector organisations that provide access to it will get funding decisions in a prompt and efficient way.
Pam Duncan-Glancy raises a really important point, which we recognised in our draft good food nation plan. There are a number of mechanisms in the plan that I could set out—and I could follow up on them with her—as to how we can encourage local procurement within our existing powers. There are difficulties with procurement, including cross-cutting pieces of legislation to which we must adhere, but we know that there are places where it is working, and we can make it work within the current framework.
We undertook a consultation on the draft good food nation plan earlier this year. We received a significant response, which I am really encouraged by, and I hope that we can strengthen some of its provisions. I look forward to having a discussion to see what more can be done. If there are specific organisations that Pam Duncan-Glancy would like me to engage with, I am more than happy to do that to see how we can strengthen the plan.
Some 85 per cent of the British public support increasing our self-sufficiency in food production in the United Kingdom. Today is back British farming day, and NFU Scotland is at Westminster, supporting MPs to mark this important day. Will the cabinet secretary support Scottish Conservative calls to hold a back British farming day here in the Scottish Parliament, so that we can celebrate the importance of Scottish farming?
I would hope that we are supporting our farmers in the job that we do every day. That is hugely important. I know the work that is being undertaken by NFUS, which does sterling work in raising the profile and importance of our industry. I have been heartened by some of the questions that I have received from across the chamber today from members who recognise that the funding that we put into agriculture is hugely important, because of food production. It is such an essential, basic need, which we require in order to survive, and that is why I am proud to support our farmers.
I am, of course, more than happy to enter into discussions with Rachael Hamilton if she has specific celebrations in mind. As ever, I am privileged, in this job, to travel across the country to meet our farmers and crofters and those who are involved in producing our food. I am, of course, happy to celebrate their achievements.
We now come to question 8—time is marching on.
New Entrants to Farming
To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing for new entrants to farming. (S6O-03692)
The Scottish Government continues to invest in new entrants into farming and crofting. From 2015 to September 2024, around £9.5 million of young farmer and new entrants support funding has been paid under the national reserve. The Scottish Government has helped to identify 134 land opportunities through the farming opportunities for new entrants group, it has facilitated more than 250 joint ventures through the Scottish Land Matching Service, it has offered a range of consultancy advice to new entrants through the Farm Advisory Service and it has supported the machinery ring pre-apprenticeship programme and the next-generation practical training fund to create opportunities for new entrants and young people.
The minister will be aware of the issue that is having an impact on one of my Fife constituents, who, as a new entrant, was given a 10-year starter farm tenancy from Forestry and Land Scotland and built up a business but, at the end of that 10-year period, found it impossible to find alternative land to farm and now faces having to leave the industry altogether, which is a dismal outcome for everybody involved. What can the minister do to help my constituent and any others who are caught in a similar situation?
I am aware of the individual case that Murdo Fraser has raised. It is not a discussion that I would like to have in the chamber, but I am more than happy to meet him after this question-time session.
The new entrants scheme was paused, because it was not having the desired effect, although some successes came out of that. As has just been released in the programme for government, we are asking our public authorities to consider what land they have so as to create more opportunities for new farmers and new entrants to farming.
Speaking as someone who had an awful job trying to get into farming myself, I am absolutely committed to that. We will ensure that the Scottish Government is doing what it can to get young people into farming.
That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands.
NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care
The next portfolio is national health service recovery, health and social care. Question 1 has been withdrawn.
Alcohol-related Brain Damage Residential Rehabilitation Service (Edinburgh)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Dr Stephen Smith’s evaluation of the alcohol-related brain damage residential rehabilitation service in Edinburgh. (S6O-03694)
The Scottish Government is currently reviewing the evaluation of the Penumbra Milestone alcohol-related brain damage—ARBD—unit that was undertaken by Dr Smith. The report highlights the improvement in cognitive function for people who were assessed in the evaluation period as well as reduced attendance rates at emergency departments. The Scottish Government will review the report’s findings and recommendations and will consider them in future policy development.
This week, we learned that 1,277 people tragically lost their lives to alcohol in 2023—a 15-year high that is, quite frankly, nothing to celebrate. That is 1,277 people who have lived with years of poor health and who have left behind families and friends—the effects are felt by so, so many. We now have 40 per cent fewer people accessing alcohol services than a decade ago and, when people do access those services, they are much older and, as a result, have increasingly complex problems.
The ARBD unit that is run by Penumbra at Milestone house saves lives, yet it is facing the withdrawal of funding. Given that the service reduces NHS Lothian hospital bed days by nearly 2,000 a year, what impact assessment has been carried out on what would happen if the service were to close?
I would like to put on record my sympathy and my condolences to all the families who have been impacted in the past year due to alcohol deaths of their loved ones.
As Sue Webber will know, decisions on funding and service provision are made at a local level by NHS Lothian and, although we have no official contact with the health board on this issue, ministers would have to consider the implications of such a move very carefully.
The Scottish Government has set out a clear definition of what counts as residential rehabilitation and has used it consistently. We are working with members of our expert residential rehabilitation development working group to assess whether the ARBD unit meets the definition and we will provide an update to the service manager in due course.
Following a Public Health Scotland report from February this year showing that the Scottish Government is on track to hit its target of 1,000 individuals per year being publicly funded to go to rehab by 2026, can the minister outline the key steps that are being taken to ensure that the target is met?
The Scottish Government is taking a number of actions to increase access to residential rehab and meet our targets. That includes providing alcohol and drug partnerships with £5 million per year for residential rehab; creating a £2 million residential rehab additional placement fund for local areas that have an increased demand for placements; and expanding residential rehab capacity by making £38 million available to eight projects across Scotland to provide 140 more beds by 2025-26.
Given the recent news that alcohol-related deaths are at a 15-year high and that the number of people who are accessing planned alcohol care and treatment has been declining for a decade, healthcare professionals in my region, South Scotland, tell me that the prevalence of ARBD unplanned presentations at emergency departments is increasing. That is not good for the patients, for the families or for the staff. Does the Government recognise that, and what measures is it taking to ensure that early intervention and support for those patients and families can be achieved right across Scotland?
Yes, the Scottish Government absolutely recognises that and we have asked Public Health Scotland to investigate the recent fall in numbers of referrals to alcohol and drug specialist services. We are giving funding to alcohol and drug partnerships for both alcohol and drug treatment services, because those services are integrated. We have made £112 million available to them, which is being used to ensure that they can make the right local decisions. I absolutely recognise that there has been a fall in numbers. We need to look at the reasons behind that, whether that is to do with stigma or a lack of understanding of where those services are.
Monklands Replacement Project
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Lanarkshire regarding the progress of the Monklands replacement project. (S6O-03695)
The business case remains under development and NHS Lanarkshire has been invited to provide an update to the Scottish Government’s capital investment group later this month.
Clearly, the financial circumstances are extremely difficult, with an austerity agenda being pursued by the United Kingdom Government. However, that said, I have had contact from many constituents who are worried that there may be further delays to the new hospital, which is badly needed. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, will have had similar representations in his role as a constituency MSP, and I appreciate that that is why he cannot answer the question. To reassure my constituents, will the minister confirm that the Monklands replacement project remains a top priority for the Scottish Government?
Yes, I understand the concerns of the member’s constituents. As we have made clear, the capital funding position is extremely challenging. All capital projects are under review to ensure that they are affordable and deliverable. The Scottish Government is in on-going discussions with NHS Lanarkshire and the impact of the budget settlement on the proposal to replace Monklands hospital. Further clarity on the health capital programme, including Monklands, will be provided following the 2025-26 Scottish budget and the review of the infrastructure investment plan.
Cancer Care (Funding Allocations)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on funding allocations to ensure the best possible cancer care for patients, particularly in their local communities. (S6O-03696)
The Scottish Government has disbursed cancer service allocations for this year to local health boards, including £4.6 million for systemic anti-cancer therapy and £11.3 million for cancer waiting times, in line with our overall strategic aim that, where possible, diagnostic tests and treatment are situated close to home and travel to specialist care is fully supported.
In addition, we are working in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support to improve the service that we offer patients in local communities through the transforming cancer care programme. It is the first programme of its kind in the United Kingdom and ensures that every patient with cancer in Scotland has access to a specialist key support worker who can assist them in accessing wider local services.
I thank the minister for her comprehensive response. I am sure that she, like me, was pleased to see the results of the Scottish cancer patient experience survey, which was published yesterday and shows that 95 per cent of cancer patients viewed the care that they received positively. However, an area for improvement, and I know that the minister will share my view on this, is that cancer patients often tell us that they want a single point of contact throughout their cancer journey who can provide advice and support. Can the minister outline the support and funding that the Scottish Government is providing to embed single points of contact across Scotland’s national health service and, in particular, in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board area, which affects my constituents in Glasgow Pollok?
I reiterate the point that Humza Yousaf has made about the positive survey from Macmillan. I agree on the importance and effectiveness of a single point of contact to provide advice and support during a person’s cancer journey. In 2024-25, we have continued to invest in our single point of contact programme, including in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, where we have invested more than £250,000 to support people with gynaecological, prostate and lung cancer. We are working with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to review the programme to consider how we best scale the approach across Scotland.
Yesterday, the Scottish cancer patient experience survey for 2024 found that more than one in five cancer patients felt that they should have been seen much sooner for diagnosis. I think that we would all acknowledge that early intervention and treatment is key to beating cancer, but the Scottish Government’s continued failure to meet waiting time targets is putting lives at risk. Can the minister tell me what outcomes will be achieved by the additional £11 million that she mentioned? By when will that money improve the missed 31 and 62-day cancer waiting time targets?
Jackie Baillie is right to say that we have room for improvement on waiting times for cancer, and we are doing work in that regard. Some £1.2 million of the funding has been directed specifically towards diagnostics, and we continue to focus on improving timely access to cancer services, which is why our programme for government has committed to opening a further rapid cancer diagnostic service, bringing our national total to six.
Mpox
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent outbreak of mpox in Africa, which was declared by the World Health Organization on 14 August to be a public health emergency of international concern, what plans it has put in place for any potential outbreak of mpox in Scotland. (S6O-03697)
We are aware of the recent outbreak of mpox in Africa, which has been declared as a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are no cases of clade I mpox confirmed in the United Kingdom, and the risk to the UK population is considered low.
The Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland are working closely with public health colleagues across the UK, including other UK ministerial colleagues, as well as national health service boards in Scotland, to monitor the situation and prepare for any cases that we might see.
Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on how the general population is being informed about the disease and assure the public that transmission rates are, as he said, a low risk to the general population?
I thank Audrey Nicoll for raising that important issue. Colleagues will have received a letter that I sent to all MSPs on 28 August. I have offered a meeting and a briefing for all Opposition colleagues next week to discuss the issue and to make sure that, from a public information perspective, we, as local leaders, are able to provide reassurance that Public Health Scotland continues to work closely with UK Health Security Agency colleagues to update a range of guidance for health professionals and the general public on mpox, in relation to the existing outbreak of clade IIb mpox, which has been present in the UK since 2022, and investigation and planning for the new strain, clade Ib, which has been spreading in parts of Africa. The guidance includes updates to the Public Health Scotland website and NHS Inform, which provides information to the general public on mpox, including on how it is transmitted, symptoms, who to contact, treatment and dos and don’ts for travellers, as well as updates for the fitfortravel website for travellers to central Africa.
The overall risk to the public is considered low, and, to date, there have been no cases of clade Ib in Scotland.
We are reminding people who have travelled recently to the affected areas to be aware of the signs and symptoms and to contact a health professional if they are concerned.
Neonatal Intensive Care Units
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support specialist neonatal intensive care units across Scotland. (S6O-03698)
The Scottish Government commissioned independent modelling of neonatal intensive care in Scotland, and the report was published on 29 May. We have asked the regional chief executives to progress with development of implementation plans, with the expectation that implementation of the new model is phased over the next one to two years. Additionally, the Scottish Government, with the support of Health Improvement Scotland and Bliss, has consulted families on implementation of the new model. We are sharing the outputs of that consultation with regional chief executives to inform development of pathways and processes for the new model of care. Jointly with national clinical leads, we are considering Scotland-level actions required.
The Scottish Government continues to provide funding to the boards hosting the neonatal intensive care units to build the capacity required.
I thank the minister for her reply, but let us get the facts straight here. The proposal to downgrade the neonatal unit at Wishaw hospital is based on inconsistent, old and inaccurate data, a flawed methodology, and excluded any consultation with parents and families.
This morning, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee considered a petition from those same parents and families. As a result, the committee has agreed to go on a site visit. Why has Scotland’s Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health never done the same? Will she now visit the Wishaw specialist neonatal intensive care unit, speak to staff and listen to their concerns? Will she review again her decision to downgrade the unit in Wishaw in the light of deliverability, capacity and resilience issues that risk not only the human rights but the human lives of those affected?
I am sure that Richard Leonard would like to correct the parliamentary record, because I have visited the Wishaw neonatal unit. I have also visited Ninewells hospital and the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and I have been gathering evidence from people across the health boards and the neonatal and maternity services that Scotland provides.
I am completely focused on ensuring that we make the right decision for the smallest and sickest babies in Scotland. I have read on numerous occasions the expert advice that we have received and I have spoken to the people who were involved in producing it, and that advice shows that reducing to three the number of intensive neonatal care units is the correct decision to support families with the smallest and sickest babies.
Can the minister speak to the success of the implementation of “The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”, and advise how the Scottish Government will continue to ensure that women and babies receive the highest quality of care according to their needs?
The plan set out our vision of a transformation of maternity and neonatal services, and the vast majority of its recommendations have been implemented. Health boards have embedded the plan in local maternity and neonatal care, and that has been supported by national initiatives such as the young patients family fund, improvements to adverse events investigating and the national bereavement care pathway.
Work continues to establish the new model of neonatal intensive care and to deliver continuity of carer, which is highlighted as a programme for government commitment.
I thank all the people who have been involved in helping to achieve the best start vision, and we will publish a full programme report later this year.
Child and Adult Mental Health Services (Impact of Budget Reductions)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact reductions to mental health budgets will have on child and adult mental health services. (S6O-03699)
Following the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer’s July statement, the Scottish Government continues to face the most challenging financial situation since devolution.
We have sought to protect mental health funding despite difficult decisions about reductions, which affect the whole Government. Although any reduction is regrettable, we remain committed to taking forward our work across mental health and working closely with key partners. Our collective focus has to be on making as much difference as possible with our funding.
We will continue to pursue our commitment to addressing waiting times backlogs, through our direct engagement with national health service boards, and to drive forward the delivery of our mental health and wellbeing strategy and associated delivery plan, by investing in prevention and early intervention as well as in services.
Regrettable is one word, but disgraceful is another, because, in some areas of the country, 60 per cent of children and young people are not being seen until between 19 and 35 weeks after their referrals to child and adolescent mental health services. How does the minister intend to tackle CAMHS waiting lists when funding for those services has been disproportionately cut by £18.8 million? Does she feel that those cuts are proportionate?
To be clear, CAMHS funding has not been cut by £18.8 million. The reduction in mental health portfolios has been achieved largely through programmes being adapted or by taking back money from programmes that have come to an end. In some cases, when it has been possible, work has been reprofiled.
We have a really good news story to tell about CAMHS. I am very proud of the sustained progress that we have made over the past few years. That has been down to enormous effort from staff all over Scotland. However, in the first half of this year, we have seen the best national performance against CAMHS waiting times since the 18-week standard was introduced 10 years ago, in 2014.
In the quarter up to June 2024, 84.1 per cent of CAMHS patients started treatment within 18 weeks of referral, and that proportion was up from 73.8 per cent in the same quarter in the previous year. For the second quarter in a row, eight out of 14 of our territorial boards met the 90 per cent standard, and one in two children and young people who are referred to CAMHS now start treatment within six weeks.
Thank you, minister. We need to go to supplementary questions.
Will the minister advise on the Scottish Government’s progress towards meeting the child and adolescent mental health services waiting times national standard?
As I made clear in my previous answer, I am really proud of the progress that we have made. Eight out of the 14 boards met the 90 per cent standard for the second quarter in a row. That is a substantial improvement on where we have been in the past. One in two children and young people who are referred to CAMHS now start treatment within six weeks, compared with within 12 weeks before the pandemic. During the past few years, there has been real and sustained improvement, which was not apparent prior to the pandemic.
However, we are not complacent, despite the progress, and we continue to be absolutely clear that long waits are unacceptable. Performance varies across health boards, and enhanced support is available from the Government to individual health boards that are not on track to meet the standard.
The minister says that she has been trying to protect mental health funding, but I am afraid that the Government does not have a good track record. The health budget for mental health has been frozen or cut in-year for the past two years, with almost £20 million in cuts announced just last week. In the programme for government, the Government said that it would commit to £120 million of funding for mental health. Will that be new money, or is it just a repackaging of existing funding?
The £120 million commitment was apparent from the budget that we, as a Parliament, collectively passed earlier this year. I have been clear that the savings have been made largely, but not solely, by reprofiling spend. We will slow down the pace of our delivery on commitments by removing some marketing funding and by pulling together the funding, for example, in the mental health enhanced outcomes framework, which brings together a number of previous mental health funding streams. We now offer a single flexible funding stream to NHS boards and integration joint boards, which means that they can use it significantly more flexibly. It is no longer ring fenced, and we have taken a saving back from that. I think that that will work better.
NHS Highland (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide any additional funding to NHS Highland, in light of the reported overspend in excess of £50 million by the NHS board in its 2023-24 revenue budget. (S6O-03700)
We provided increased investment of £0.5 billion for national health service boards in 2024-25, which took funding to more than £14.2 billion. That is an increase of almost 3 per cent in real terms, with NHS Highland seeing £39 million of increased investment for 2024-25.
Notwithstanding that investment, NHS boards, like other public services, are under unprecedented pressure as a result of spiralling United Kingdom inflation—which has eroded our spending power—Brexit and Covid, and we continue to work with them to address the financial challenges this year and beyond.
The Scottish Government recognises the continued financial and operational pressures that the health and social care sector faces and the need to recover, reform and improve services.
In short, I think that that means no. As there will be no additional funding and there is no way for NHS Highland to save additional funds by reducing its biggest cost, which is staff costs, will the cabinet secretary reveal which elective surgeries the Government suggests that NHS Highland should cancel to allow it to remain financially solvent?
Through our finance directorate, we are supporting NHS boards, including NHS Highland, to work through the financial pressures that they are facing and to work to their financial recovery plans. I have a good working relationship with the new chief executive, Fiona Davies, in relation to meeting those financial plans. We will continue to work to protect front-line NHS provision rather than, as Edward Mountain suggests, seeing it stripped back.
I have two requests for supplementary questions. I intend to take both, but I ask that they are both kept brief.
General practitioners in the Highlands assure me that £6 million could be saved every year if NHS Highland were to return to GPs the service of providing vaccinations. Adopting that approach across Scotland would lead to savings of £100 million. I have been pressing for that to happen for two and a half years. Why will the cabinet secretary not order NHS Highland to make those savings?
Fergus Ewing and I have engaged previously on that point, including with local GPs in his constituency. He will be aware that the 2018 GP contract was agreed between the Scottish Government and the British Medical Association following a poll of the profession. The transfer of vaccinations was a key element of that contract and allows GPs to focus on what only they can do. That does not mean that GPs should never deliver vaccinations; the contract provides flexibility in rural situations.
I have asked NHS Highland to make full use of all the flexibilities in the GP contract to ensure comprehensive delivery of our vaccination programmes. I understand that the latest NHS Highland vaccination data demonstrates improved rates.
It was good to hear the cabinet secretary lay out the increase in funding that NHS Highland received from the Scottish Government this financial year, and that the Government is willing to support it in light of further financial challenges. What level of cut would have been delivered to the health board if we had followed the real-terms cut to health resource spending that was laid out by the then UK Government?
In 2024-25, NHS Highland’s resource budget increased by 3.7 per cent in real terms, compared with last year. In cash terms, its budget increased by £39 million, which is 5.1 per cent, in the same period. Had the Scottish Government followed the then UK Government’s spending for the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Highland would have had a real-terms cut of 0.2 per cent.
That highlights the importance that the Scottish Government places on increasing the resources that are available to us through more progressive taxation, which is opposed by both Labour and the Tories. Had we followed their advice, our health boards, including NHS Highland, would have been in a much worse situation.