Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. Question 1 has been withdrawn.
Safeguarding Training (Non-clinical NHS Staff)
To ask the Scottish Government what safeguarding training NHS boards are required to provide to non-clinical staff who are handling interactions with members of the public. (S6O-02983)
The staff governance standard, which is applicable to all staff employed by NHS Scotland, requires health boards to appropriately train and develop staff and provide a safe working environment. The national policies on personal development and managing health at work support boards, as employers of national health service staff, to identify and provide necessary training for staff according to statutory requirements, the job role and individual training needs.
People who require to use NHS services will go through a process of dealing with non-clinical staff before seeing a medical professional. Many of those patients may be neurodivergent or require tailored communication. It is important that staff can identify needs and transmit medical information in a way that is effective and appropriate for neurodivergent patients. How often does the Scottish Government monitor and review the type of safeguarding training that is required for non-clinical staff with regard to such specific needs?
The national policy is to ensure that NHS staff, in whichever role they work, are provided with the appropriate training to undertake that role. It is the responsibility of their employer—the NHS board—to ensure that they receive the necessary training. Therefore, those non-clinical staff who work with individuals who have neurodivergent conditions should be appropriately trained in order to do so.
However, if the member has specific examples of instances in which he feels that that has not been the case, he should write to me with the details, and I will be more than happy to look into the matter for him and to ensure that the issue is appropriately addressed.
Question 3 has been withdrawn and question 4 has not been lodged.
Lifelong Learning
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve lifelong learning in Scotland. (S6O-02986)
Our lifelong learning offer already caters for a range of learner needs. However, last month, I set out to Parliament the steps that I will be taking to further improve lifelong learning in Scotland. As part of our reform programme, the Scottish Government will take the lead on skills planning, simplify funding and take a central role in the development of apprenticeships. I have also commissioned a short independent review of community learning, to be led by Kate Still, which is to make recommendations by summer 2024.
I am grateful for that response, and I hope that members across the chamber can agree on the importance of lifelong learning.
According to last year’s Scottish Government report, “Adult lifetime skills: a literature review”,
“Literature on the weaknesses of the current adult skills system in Scotland is also relatively sparse”.
Can the minister tell us why, after 25 years of being a devolved nation, for 17 years of which a Scottish National Party Government has been in charge, there are still significant gaps in lifetime skills data and when the Government will rectify that? When will those gaps be identified and, more important, when will the need be met?
I will begin on a note of consensus: I completely concur with Martin Whitfield on the importance of the issue that he raises. I also recognise that he has a genuine interest in the topic.
I will offer just three specifics on what we are planning to do, because I think that it is more important to talk about what we intend to do and what we will do, rather than what has happened previously. I hope that my answer provides him with some reassurance on the seriousness of my intent in this area.
The national careers service that we intend to offer will be an all-ages service; it will not be aimed primarily at young people, important though it is that we get that aspect right. We are also working with employers and colleges in particular to shape an agile and responsive short qualifications offering that meets the needs of businesses and employees who are looking to upskill to meet changing needs.
There is also a review of community learning and development provision to identify where in the country we might have to improve that offer in order to provide people of all ages with the chance to improve the quality of their day-to-day lives and, where applicable, access to education, training and employment.
I agree that there is a need for data to underpin that. In part, the review is intended to give us a clear picture of what is happening, but we know but that there are issues, because they have been identified by the Withers review and others. I am inclined simply to get on with fixing some of those issues.
I very much welcome the minister’s evident commitment to improving lifelong learning in Scotland. It is commendable that that is the Scottish Government’s position. Can the minister indicate what assessment has been made of how to promote that objective in my Cowdenbeath constituency and across the kingdom of Fife?
Annabelle Ewing makes a very good point, which is at the heart of why I have commissioned the review. If we are to address the point that has been made by her and others, we must understand what is and what is not working well and where there are pockets of good practice that we can try to roll out.
It is important to raise awareness of access to community learning and development, but I want to understand better the position across the country, so that we can take steps that are informed by robust information.
Colleges (Staff Attraction and Retention)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to attract and retain staff in colleges. (S6O-02987)
Operational decisions, including those about attracting and retaining staff, are matters for individual colleges. The Scottish Government expects colleges’ staffing complements to be in line with the needs of their learners and of their local and regional economies.
The Scottish Government, through its fair work agenda and through its work to support the adoption of the teacher qualification in further education, continues to support the college sector in attracting and retaining support and lecturing staff.
It is rare for a week to pass without a minister saying in the chamber that we do not have industrial action in the national health service in Scotland at the moment because of the action and intervention of ministers. What does it say about the failure of the Government to intervene in our colleges when we note that this week, college staff in the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association have once again voted overwhelmingly to take industrial action? What will the minister do in the coming days to avert that action and to ensure that our college staff get a fair pay deal, given that Audit Scotland recently warned that we face a recruitment and retention crisis in our colleges and that more cuts and a lack of fair pay will simply make that worse?
I am literally just off a call with the Unite union on that very subject. I have engaged with all the trade unions and the employers.
Colin Smyth knows that ministers cannot enforce a pay settlement in the sector. He also knows that industrial relations in the sector have been toxic, to say the least, for eight of the past nine years. I am actively encouraging all sides to try to find a solution, which is the role for ministers in all that.
There is a long-term issue with industrial relations in the college sector. I am intrigued by the fact that, although all sides recognise that, we have not yet been able to find a solution. We need to find a solution to the current pay dispute, but we also need to find a solution to the longer-term systemic problem in the sector. I think that if all the actors are as genuine as they tell me they are, we can resolve both issues.
Something that will not attract and retain staff is a proposed cut of 8 per cent—which is £58.7 million—to the net college resource budget. Recruitment of staff and students for next year has to happen right now, so when, precisely, will colleges know exactly what their budgets for next year will be, and just how brutal will those cuts be?
Mr Kerr is knowledgeable about those things and knows that there is a process, following publication of the draft budget, in which the Scottish Funding Council works directly with colleges and universities to determine the specifics of their budgets. That process is under way. I am not currently sighted on the exact details, although I will be in due course. I anticipate that more precise detail will emerge in the next few weeks.
The minister knows that redundancies have been proposed at the Shetland campus of the University of the Highlands and Islands. What confidence can be given to the community that, in the future, we will have a Shetland college that meets the needs of local learners and of local businesses that require different sets of skills?
I am grateful for the question. Beatrice Wishart and I have engaged directly on the matter quite recently. She is right—there is legitimate concern about the situation at UHI Shetland. I can assure her that both UHI as an entity and the Scottish Funding Council are engaged directly with the college in Shetland to try to ensure its future along the lines that she indicated, but it has to get itself into a sustainable position. There are currently some challenges there, but I think that everyone is participating positively in trying to find the right solution for the college and for Shetland.
City of Edinburgh Council (Housing Emergency Declaration)
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the City of Edinburgh Council to discuss its housing emergency declaration. (S6O-02988)
The Scottish Government regularly engages with the City of Edinburgh Council concerning our shared efforts to end homelessness and reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation. On 7 December, I met the convener of the housing, homelessness and fair work committee, Councillor Meagher, to consider housing supply matters. On 21 December, I discussed budgetary matters, including housing, with the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Cammy Day. Just yesterday, I met the Scottish Cities Alliance to discuss housing, and that meeting included officers and council leader Cammy Day.
Continuous dialogue between officials is facilitated through forums such as the City of Edinburgh Council’s homelessness task force, which last met on 13 December. Scottish Government officials and their City of Edinburgh Council counterparts will next meet on 23 January.
I welcome the minister’s engagement, which is much appreciated, but it is not just the City of Edinburgh Council that has declared a housing emergency—other councils are doing it now. Last week, 781 people applied for a single council house in Dreghorn. The housing emergency is a “now” issue. What action will the Scottish Government take imminently to tackle our housing emergency, whether by bringing empty homes back into use or by getting moving on building both housing to meet general needs and social rented accommodation?
On the specific issues, Sarah Boyack will be aware of the announcement of £60 million of acquisition funding. We are discussing various sites with the City of Edinburgh Council and we are talking about allocation policies. Sarah Boyack will be aware that we have also attended a number of round-table events in Edinburgh at which the particular issue of empty homes has been raised. We are working with the council with regard to empty homes and a few other things. There are a few strategic sites, such as at Granton in the west of Edinburgh, that we are working with the council to develop as quickly as possible.
I, too, thank the minister for his committed engagement on the housing emergency in Edinburgh and for his appreciation of the financial constraints, which are real. The situation in Edinburgh is becoming more and more serious, and it is more acute than the situations elsewhere in the country. In this new year of 2024, as well as the official engagement, can we expect action from the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council, working together, to tackle the emergency?
I thank the member for his question. As I said, we are engaging with the City of Edinburgh Council on a regular basis on the issues that I mentioned, such as strategic sites that are coming forward and the acquisition policies. When I met the Scottish Cities Alliance yesterday, we looked at innovative methods of financing that the City of Edinburgh Council has used before, such as the growth accelerator model and tax increment financing. We are engaging with the council on the issue, and we will continue to engage with it on bringing housing forward as soon as we possibly can.
We need to find solutions, and part of that is about looking at our land supply issues in the capital. Will the Scottish Government agree to audit all public land—not just council land and Scottish Government agency land, but national health service land as well—to see what development sites might be available to help to significantly reduce the cost of affordable housing development? We know that many sites across the Edinburgh area will not necessarily be developed as part of the local plan. I hope that the opportunity to undertake a proper audit will be taken up and that that is a positive suggestion.
I thank the member for his question. We are touching on planning issues, but, with regard to the availability of land such as NHS land, I have already engaged with Paul Lawrence and Cammy Day, from the the the City of Edinburgh Council, to discuss that. I am awaiting some evidence from them about land that is available and how we can work to bring it forward, which may include land that is not in the local development process. We are engaging with the council on that issue.
In November last year, the city of Glasgow, too, declared a housing emergency. I understand from my colleagues at Glasgow City Council that our city has about 1,500 fewer homes than it needs in order to meet demand. I know that the housing minister meets council representatives regularly, but what work is going on to address Glasgow’s specific needs, including the challenges that have been set by the Home Office’s fast-tracking of asylum claims?
I met Glasgow City Council to consider the city’s housing supply challenges on 12 December, and I will meet it again on 23 January.
In October, the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees wrote to the United Kingdom Government to request funding to support local authorities to manage asylum pressure. However, no additional support was forthcoming. That is deeply disappointing, and ministers continue, alongside our Welsh Government colleagues, to press the matter. Clearly, the Home Office’s approach is pushing people into destitution, and the impact of that on Glasgow—Scotland’s largest dispersal area—is particularly acute. We will again call on the UK Government to recognise the devastating impact of its approach on local authorities, communities and asylum seekers.
Out-of-hours General Practice Services (Inverclyde)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss out-of-hours GP services in Inverclyde. (S6O-02989)
The Scottish Government engages regularly with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, as it does with other health boards, on a variety of issues, including the provision of out-of-hours services. Healthcare Improvement Scotland is supporting the health board directly in relation to the service provision in Inverclyde, to ensure quality engagement on any permanent change to that service. The Scottish Government has been sighted on that process.
Communities across Inverclyde, in my region, are deeply concerned about the possibility of a permanent reduction in availability of their out-of-hours services and what that will mean for local communities. I pay tribute to local campaigners, including local councillors—in particular, Martin McCluskey—for all their work in pushing forward the case for the value of those services. That marks quite a contrast to the member for Greenock and Inverclyde, who, according to reports in the Greenock Telegraph, has already given up the fight and accepted that his constituents and mine will have to put up with reduced services.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise the value and importance of a full out-of-hours service in Inverclyde? Will he listen to local people’s views and deliver more than just a weekend-only out-of-hours service, as local people deserve?
As Paul O’Kane will be aware, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has undertaken a full consultation exercise that closed last month and is presently being analysed by the board. Healthcare Improvement Scotland has a clear process for looking at any review of what may be classed as a major service.
It is important to recognise that the reintroduction of the part-time service on Saturdays complements the existing home visiting service, which remains operational throughout evenings and weekends and overnight. However, it is important that any decision that is arrived at takes into account the concerns and issues that have been raised by the local community during the consultation process.
It is frustrating that the general practitioner out-of-hours service in Inverclyde is to be limited to Saturdays and public holidays. However, having attended one of the health board’s public consultations on the service changes, I am aware that just over a third of people from Inverclyde who need to see a GP out of hours are given a face-to-face appointment, with the remainder being given video, telephone or home appointments. I want a full service to be reinstated to Inverclyde, but not to the extent of losing the accident and emergency provision, concern over which was very much highlighted at the consultation that I attended. If Paul O’Kane had been there, he would have heard that.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important that we consider the full context in which those decisions have been taken and, ultimately, do not mislead the public, as some have done in the press, by suggesting that Inverclyde does not have an out-of-hours GP service?
I recognise the concerns and issues that Stuart McMillan has raised, and I have made the point about the services that are available, including the home visiting service, which remains operational throughout evenings and weekends and overnight. It is important that people are not left with the impression that no services are available in the Inverclyde area. I agree with Stuart McMillan that we would like there to be greater out-of-hours service coverage across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, including in Inverclyde.
I want to make sure that the process that has been followed by the board in holding the consultation exercise is in line with the Healthcare Improvement Scotland guidance on such matters and that, at the conclusion of that exercise, we have a clearer understanding of the most appropriate path for dealing with out-of-hours services in the Inverclyde area.
One of the problems with not having out-of-hours GP services is that people will simply present at A and E, adding more pressure to already overstretched departments, particularly at Inverclyde Royal hospital but right across Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary explain what additional resource support he can offer to A and E departments to deal with that influx of patients when no other services are available?
We have to wait for the outcome of the consultation exercise in Inverclyde. However, I do not disagree with the point that Jamie Greene has made about the potential impact on A and E departments if there is no access to out-of-hours services.
This winter, specific work has been undertaken to make sure that there is greater resilience in our out-of-hours services across the country, which has been effective over the past month or two because of the actions that we have taken. Notwithstanding that, I recognise Jamie Greene’s concerns, which is why we will look very closely at the outcomes of the consultation and the impact that they could have on wider services.
That concludes general question time.