Scottish Parliament, 29 February 2024

276 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Prescription Wig Provision

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what work has been done to improve accessibility to prescription wig provision for those affected by hair loss. (S6O-03142)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government knows that the provision of wigs is important to many people who have been diagnosed with various forms of hair loss. The prescription of wig provision is dependent on clinical assessment and individual need, with decisions made by clinicians in consultation with patients. The Scottish Government issued advisory national guidance on wig prescriptions to all national health service health boards in 2011 and again in 2014 to allow them to deliver services that meet the needs of their local population.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

A constituent of mine

currently receives real-hair wigs but, given the advancements in acrylic wigs, she would like to try one of those instead. She has advised me that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has said that, if she makes that decision, she would not be able to move back to a real-hair wig prescription should she wish to do so. That seems a bit harsh. Can the minister confirm whether there are any plans to review that approach to allow more flexibility in moving between the two wig prescriptions?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Marie McNair for raising this important issue in the chamber. I have had friends who have chosen to wear a wig and I have another who volunteers at the Beatson, and I have heard directly from them about the benefit of being able to access wigs on prescription, if wished. The current approach, which allows the change of wigs from natural to synthetic, is flexible. It is for NHS boards to implement the guidelines, and I hope that they take a person-centred approach to that.

National Health Service Capital Projects

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact that any mass delay of NHS capital projects would have on patient and staff safety. (S6O-03143)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Patient safety is a key strategic objective for the Scottish Government, and we are committed to ensuring that all health and care is safe, effective and person centred. We will continue to support national health service staff and their wellbeing to ensure that they can continue to deliver the best possible care. Despite the real-terms cut to the Scottish Government’s capital budget, health boards have had their capital maintenance budget protected at 2023-24 levels, which will allow them to continue to invest £150 million in maintaining the existing estate and to work on reducing backlog maintenance.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The safety of our staff is of paramount importance. Without staff safety, we cannot deliver patient safety—they go hand in hand. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the trade unions about the impacts on the workforce of the delay to capital projects? Has the Government assessed the impacts of the up-and-coming implementation of safe staffing on service provision?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On the latter point, I discussed that with staff-side trade unions last week in our regular Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee discussions. I have not yet had the time to be able to have direct discussions on the former part of Carol Mochan’s question, but I expect to have those discussions in my on-going engagements with trade union representatives across the NHS and social care.

We do not want to be in this position, of course. We want to invest in NHS capital projects. They are a necessity if the NHS and social care services are to continue to make progress. Unfortunately, the position is the result of the financial reality that we face. We have had £1.6 billion removed from our capital budget by decisions from the United Kingdom Government and an increase in costs due to spiralling UK inflation.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The cabinet secretary has correctly highlighted the cut to capital expenditure by the UK Government. There is a sense now that people are understanding the real impact of that cut on people’s lives. Can the cabinet secretary give any further insight into the discussions with the UK Government on emphasising the critical impact of the cut in the Scottish Government’s capital expenditure budget?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I can. Michelle Thomson is absolutely right. The years of austerity, alongside the particular decisions that have come through, whereby we have seen £1.6 billion come out of our capital budget, are having a real-time impact on people and our services.

The Deputy First Minister wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, on 23 February to outline the Scottish Government’s priority ahead of the UK Government’s spring budget. In that letter, the Deputy First Minister highlighted that, in addition to the block grant having fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since 2022-23, UK capital funding is set to fall by almost 10 per cent, or £1.6 billion, between 2023-24 and 2027-28. The Deputy First Minister has communicated a very strong message to the chancellor that there is a clear need for increased investment by the UK Government in public services and, by extension, the economy ahead of the next fiscal event.

Non-domestic Rates Public Health Supplement

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has conducted of the potential impact of the proposed non-domestic rates public health supplement on large retailers, as set out in its 2024-25 Scottish budget. (S6O-03144)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The

announcement in the Scottish budget for 2024-25 signalled the Scottish Government’s intent to explore the reintroduction of a public health supplement for large retailers in advance of the next budget. In line with the new deal for business, we are committed to engaging early with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that any impact of any proposals on business is fully understood. Exploratory discussions have already started with business and other relevant stakeholders such as public health organisations, and those will continue to ensure that considered and informed decisions can be made in advance of the 2025-26 budget.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the very strong concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish Retail Consortium. At stage 2, she promised that she would examine the likely impacts of any such move. However, I ask her to recognise that those who are already liable for the higher property rate are paying a much higher rate on comparable premises than those elsewhere in the UK and that the imposition of a surtax would just widen that differential and undermine the ability of large Scottish retailers to remain competitive.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As Liz Smith recognised, we have been engaging directly with a number of business organisations including the Scottish Retail Consortium, and we will continue to do that. We have asked for some information and evidence from the sector on what it regards the impact to be, and we will continue to work with it through those discussions in line with the new deal for business. The discussions so far have been very constructive.

Critical Transport Infrastructure (Resilience)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that critical transport infrastructure is resilient against extreme weather events. (S6O-03145)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

“Transport Scotland’s Approach to Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience”, or ACCAR, which was published in August 2023, sets out a strategic framework to secure a well-adapted future for Scotland’s transport system. ACCAR provides our current approach to adaptation and strategic outcomes for road, rail, aviation and maritime transport networks to address the key climate risks affecting Scotland’s transport system. We continue to address known hotspots and look for opportunities to future proof our transport networks so that they can meet the future challenges of climate change.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is clear

that the effects of the climate emergency are now having a real impact on our roads and railways. The storms and increased rainfall in October last year saw pre-emptive rail line closures for the first time. Those closures led the editor of

Rail Engineer

magazine, David Shirres, to comment:

“infrastructure that had shown itself to be resilient to the UK’s past weather may now no longer be so.”

Will the cabinet secretary outline what discussions she has had with Network Rail on ensuring that rail infrastructure is resilient to climate change across Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government has committed to invest £4.2 billion in Scottish rail infrastructure over the next five-year investment period, in line with our high-level output specification. The specification focuses on climate change adaptation and resilience as one of the strategic priorities and it makes provision for enhancing the weather resilience and climate change adaptation strategy. I discussed that with Network Rail earlier this year in London, and this afternoon I will discuss control period 7, which focuses on climate change, with Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Failure by the Scottish Government to provide any cover for the MV Hamnavoe during its refit in January led to there being no service on Pentland Firth routes at various points over the two-week period during poor weather. Will the Cabinet Secretary for Transport commit to ensuring that a replacement vessel is available on the Stromness to Scrabster route in future, in order to provide much-needed resilience on that lifeline service?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The constituency MSP clearly communicated his concerns about risk during that period. I was reassured that the capacity issues were met during that period but, as the member knows, we are always looking at increasing the freight opportunities for the northern isles and we will continue to do so.

PFI and PPP (Local Authority Finances)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the repayment of private finance initiative and public-private partnership debts on local authority finances. (S6O-03146)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

PFI and PPP unitary payments are a significant pressure on local authority budgets. There are 38 on-going local authority PFI and PPP contracts. Up to £8.15 billion has been paid on those contracts up to this year, with a further £7.25 billion of payments to be made over the coming years, which equates to £15.4 billion in payments for local authority projects with a capital value of £3.27 billion.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

South Lanarkshire Council, which is the local authority for my constituency of Rutherglen, will be paying about £40 million this year in disastrous PFI repayments. That yearly figure will only rise over the coming decade. When the council entered into those contracts, Labour was in power at council level, in Holyrood and at Westminster. The £40 million is being removed from the council’s spending power this year at a time when the council proposes to close local facilities and cut free school bus provision. Will the Deputy First Minister assure me that, although it is contending with Labour’s toxic PFI legacy, which has failed to deliver the best value for the taxpayer, the Scottish Government will never return to the disastrous PFI model?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I absolutely give Clare Haughey that assurance, because PFI was an expensive mistake. Even if the PFI and PPP models of the Tories and Labour were an option, we would totally reject them, as they are extremely poor value for money. PFI simply did not deliver the best value for the people of Scotland, and we are still paying for the legacy of what were, in the main, Labour’s mistakes.

Public Finances (Impact of Recession)

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

6. To ask the Scottish Government, in the light of recent Office for National Statistics data, what assessment it has made of the impact on Scotland’s public finances of the United Kingdom entering a recession in 2023. (S6O-03147)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The news that the UK has entered a recession represents the latest failure of the UK Government. That will compound the economic challenges that households, businesses and we in the Scottish Government are facing.

Last week, I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and copied in the chancellor, to urge her to provide additional investment in public infrastructure and services in the forthcoming budget. However, at the moment, the reality is that our UK Government capital funding is set to fall by almost 10 per cent in real terms between 2023-24 and 2027-28, which will make it impossible to provide the investment that is needed to underpin future sustainable economic growth.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

It is clear that economically illiterate Westminster policies, including Brexit, austerity cuts and cutting labour force migration in key industries, have set the UK on the path to long-term decline. It is vital that future action is taken to support families who are facing financial pressures at this difficult time. We know that most of the powers to tackle poverty and the cost of living remain reserved. Will the minister update me on the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK Government on the steps that the UK Government should take in the upcoming UK budget to support families who are facing pressures?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Last week, the Deputy First Minister wrote to urge the chancellor to provide further targeted support for people who are struggling. That must include an essentials guarantee, which would provide the most basic of necessities and benefit 8.8 million families. We have again called for the abolition of the two-child limit, the benefit cap, the young parent penalty in universal credit and the bedroom tax. We are doing what we can to mitigate the effect of those damaging policies, but we cannot mitigate everything. The chancellor needs to take action to support vulnerable families in his budget next week.

Ardrossan to Brodick Ferry

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a long-term commitment to retain the Ardrossan to Brodick ferry service. (S6O-03148)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government maintains its commitment to ensuring that services to Arran are fit for the future. The business case, including cost estimates, for Ardrossan harbour redevelopment that is being prepared must be as robust as possible to secure the required funding from all the funding partners, which are North Ayrshire Council, Peel Ports and Transport Scotland.

I take the opportunity to acknowledge and understand the significant difficulties that the Arran community has faced on the operation of ferry services, which has been extremely challenging, given the severe weather disruptions and vessel outages. The MV Isle of Arran is currently operating a single-vessel service between Ardrossan and Brodick, and there are no capacity issues.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary knows that, on Arran and in Ardrossan, there is a great deal of concern about whether Ardrossan to Brodick will be the long-term route. Will she reassure people there that it will be, given that it is the quickest and most convenient route, and given the ferry port’s socioeconomic importance to Ardrossan?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member’s point about the socioeconomic case is important, which is why Transport Scotland officials will next week meet North Ayrshire Council again to ensure that the business case is as robust as possible. Last week, under the auspices of Kenny Gibson, who is the constituency MSP, I met a number of Arran ferry stakeholders to discuss the issues.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

What I did not hear in either of the cabinet secretary’s two responses was a firm commitment that Brodick to Ardrossan will be retained as the primary route. The Scottish Government did not build a ferry that was fit for purpose on that route, and neither has the Scottish Government invested properly in Ardrossan harbour since the 2017 campaign to save it as part of the primary route. Will the Government give a firm commitment that it is committed to the Brodick to Ardrossan ferry route remaining for the future?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are committed to that service. I remind Jamie Greene that the Scottish Government is not the harbour authority for Ardrossan; it is Peel Ports. The United Kingdom Government’s subsidy control measures will have an impact on what can or cannot be done to allow the Scottish Government to invest in a harbour that is not our own but which is owned by a private entity.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the cabinet secretary for meeting me and North Ayrshire representatives to discuss this important issue at such short notice. When are the final report on Ardrossan harbour from the consultants Turner & Townsend and the structural report from Peel Ports expected?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The cost exercise report from Turner & Townsend is expected by the end of this week. It will then be shared with project partners to assist with confirmation of financial packages for the project and to feed into work on the business case. We await the structural report from Peel Ports, which will also be essential to informing the business case work. Transport Scotland officials continue to engage with Peel Ports and other partners on this important matter and they note the urgency in developing the business case towards finalisation.

EE Greenock Call Centre

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with BT Group/EE regarding the proposed closure of its Greenock call centre. (S6O-03149)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have written to BT Group to express my concern about its decision, and I have urged it to engage with stakeholders to consider all options to retain the jobs in Greenock. The Minister for Small Business, Innovation, Tourism and Trade, Richard Lochhead, has spoken to representatives of EE and BT and urged them to keep all options on the table, including maintaining a presence in Greenock. The minister also attended a meeting of the Inverclyde task force on 20 February and has discussed the proposed closure of the site with representatives of Inverclyde Council. The Scottish Government will continue to engage closely with all partners in Inverclyde as the situation develops. Earlier this week, I followed up on the meeting of the task force by sending it an invitation to meet me, given my new portfolio responsibilities.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

About 450 people are employed at EE’s call centre in Greenock, whose work is set to be moved to Glasgow. In the past year alone, 1,000 jobs have been lost from the Inverclyde area because of site closures—most notably that of Amazon in Gourock.

Despite repeated calls having been made to it, the Scottish Government has so far provided not a penny of financial support in response to job losses over the past year. It has not responded to the calls of Inverclyde’s socioeconomic task force for more investment, which it made more than six months ago. If the Government will not provide that needed additional support now—in the face of this jobs crisis—when will it do so?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Neil Bibby was absolutely right to outline successive closures and job losses in Greenock. I will engage with the Inverclyde task force on all the issues that he mentioned, to see whether the Government can do anything more to assist. The task force is dealing with the situation on the ground and is best placed to get into the weeds of what is going on there and liaise with the companies involved to try to retain some of the jobs in Greenock that are in jeopardy as a result of decisions that private companies have made.

Emma Caldwell Case (Independent Public Inquiry)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Yesterday, after nearly 20 years, the murderer of Emma Caldwell was finally brought to justice. As well as her murder, Iain Packer was convicted of 33 offences against 22 women, which he committed over three decades. He should have been behind bars years ago.

This morning, speaking via her lawyer, Aamer Anwar, Emma’s mother, Margaret Caldwell, told us:

“They knew it was Iain Packer as far back as 2006, but they gave him ... freedom to carry on attacking and raping vulnerable women like my Emma.”

Margaret had a message for the First Minister:

“If Mr Yousaf genuinely cares about victims and my Emma then he has no other option but to organise an independent public inquiry.”

She continued:

“with respect—what are you waiting for?”

Will Humza Yousaf take the opportunity today to immediately announce the establishment of a judge-led inquiry?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Douglas Ross for raising an exceptionally important issue. First and foremost, I once again give my condolences and those of the Government to Emma’s family, friends and loved ones at what will continue to be an extraordinarily difficult time. I pay tribute to Margaret Caldwell, Emma’s mother, and her family, who tirelessly fought for justice for not only Emma but the many other women who suffered at the hands of Iain Packer. I also recognise the important role that journalists from the

Sunday Mail

and BBC Scotland have played in the case, as well as the tenacity of the reporters in trying to seek out justice.

Yesterday’s verdict will not, I suspect, have brought elation or happiness to Emma’s family, or to Margaret in particular, but I hope that it gives them a tiny crumb of comfort that justice, to some extent, has been done. However, Douglas Ross is right that justice came far too late. There is no doubt that there are serious failings in the case. I have responded in writing to Margaret Caldwell’s legal representative to say that I am willing to meet Margaret Caldwell, alongside the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.

With regard to a public inquiry, I want to hear from Margaret Caldwell and examine the case. It is not just about getting more detail—it is important to say that there is still an on-going legal process. Iain Packer has the right to appeal, so we must wait, to some extent, to see the next stages of that legal process. Let me be clear that we are exploring a judge-led public inquiry. It is absolutely not off the table, and we are giving serious consideration to that, given the systemic failings of the case.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree with almost everything that the First Minister said, but a judge-led inquiry needs to be more than explored and should not be off the table. Of course, legal routes still have to be established and finished, but we know that there are major failings in the case that will not change, regardless of an appeal.

This morning, via her legal counsel, Aamer Anwar, Margaret Caldwell told us:

“A judge led public inquiry—that acts without fear or favour—is the very least my Emma and the many women who spoke up deserve. For far too long, those in the police or crown who failed us have remained in the shadows.”

She finished by saying:

“Only a judge led public inquiry will reveal the corruption, the criminality and the motivation.”

Emma Caldwell’s family and many other women who were attacked need answers now, not in another 20 years. The victims and their families need a free and fearless public inquiry that they can fully trust. The First Minister needs to say today that he agrees to that judge-led inquiry. We are calling for that inquiry to be led by a judge from outwith Scotland. Will he agree to that?

The First Minister

There is not much difference between Douglas Ross and me in this regard. I do not rule out a public inquiry. I am suggesting that it is important and prudent for me to meet Margaret Caldwell in order to hear directly from her and from her legal representative, and to explore and examine what the interaction would be between any inquiry and an on-going legal process. I hear what Douglas Ross is saying. If there is to be a judge-led public inquiry, the question is whether it should be led by a judge from outside Scotland. That question is worthy of consideration if we get to that position.

Let me be absolutely clear that we do not rule out a judge-led public inquiry—in fact, it is firmly on the table. As First Minister, it is important that I consider the on-going legal process.

I go back to the central point, on which Douglas Ross and I do not disagree, that many women—we know of at least 21 of them—were subjected to the most horrendous attacks, sexual assault, rape, and, tragically in Emma’s case, murder, by Iain Packer. Ultimately, they were let down by failings in the justice system and failings in the police service at the time. I commend the bravery of the many women who have come forward to speak about their experiences in the pursuit of justice.

I go back to my central point. I will meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representative. I am very open to the suggestion of and the calls for a judge-led public inquiry.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I really feel that the First Minister has to go further. He said in his answer that people have been let down. There are many failings—we know that. Regardless of any appeal that is still to come, the failings of the police and the Crown are crystal clear. That is why a judge-led inquiry by someone from outwith Scotland is the only option—it must be the only option on the table. The First Minister needs to take the opportunity today to agree to that and announce it.

An inquiry led by a judge from outwith Scotland will get to the bottom of what happened. Those were not just mere accidents by Police Scotland or the Crown Office; it seems that evidence was deliberately ignored and suppressed. The truth only emerged after years of campaigning by Emma’s family and when a former detective, Gerry Gallacher, stepped forward as a whistleblower. He publicly identified Iain Packer as a suspect in the media. It is utterly shocking that the response from the police was to launch a surveillance operation targeting the journalists and the whistleblowers. One of the whistleblowers, Gerry Gallacher, said that there must be consequences for those who are responsible. Does Humza Yousaf agree on that point?

The First Minister

I agree that the targeting of not just police officers but journalists is incredibly worrying and concerning.

I go back to the question that Douglas Ross asked me from the very beginning about a public inquiry. If the Government is to announce a judge-led public inquiry, which we are seriously considering and exploring, it is important for us to speak to Margaret Caldwell and to come to the Parliament with the full detail of what any public inquiry could look to explore and examine, and what any potential terms of reference might look like. I go back to my central point that we are not at all opposed to a public inquiry and that, in fact, that is very firmly in our consideration.

Douglas Ross is absolutely right. When we look back over the history of the case, some of the allegations that are being made in relation to Police Scotland—and the legacy forces that existed prior to Police Scotland’s formation—are astonishing. On behalf of the Government and to give some level of assurance, I note that that is why the work on violence against women and girls is so important to this very day. We continue to ensure that we fund that work.

There are many questions to answer around why Iain Packer was able to evade justice and continue to commit the many crimes that he did for so long. We will seriously consider all the options that are on the table, including a judge-led public inquiry. We will also take on board Douglas Ross’s suggestion that, if there is to be a public inquiry, we should consider whether a judge outwith Scotland should lead it.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Emma Caldwell, her grieving family and Iain Packer’s many other victims were betrayed by what was one of Scotland’s worst policing scandals. Many questions remain about this shameful saga, which can be answered only by a fearless, transparent and independent inquiry. I really think that that is the only option.

We need to know why it took so long to charge Iain Packer. Why was he allowed to remain free to attack more women? Who was responsible for allowing him, after multiple interviews, to continue to walk free?

I hope that the First Minister can take from this the need to urgently and immediately meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representatives, to give an urgent statement to Parliament in a matter of days, and to finally announce that the Government is launching an independent inquiry, and that it will be led by a judge from outside Scotland.

The First Minister

Douglas Ross is right that there are lots of questions that demand an answer. It is important that the many women who have been failed—Emma Caldwell was ultimately failed, but many other women have also been failed by the justice system and police forces previously—get the answers to the questions that they rightly have.

I assure Douglas Ross that we will seek to meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representative urgently, and we will look at the options in front of us and come back to Parliament on that urgently. As Douglas Ross said in his opening question, women have waited far too long for justice, given the history of the case.

I will end where I started, by paying tribute to Margaret Caldwell in particular, but also to the many other women who came forward bravely to speak about their experiences, and to the fearless journalists who first unmasked Iain Packer’s activities and were tireless in their pursuit for justice. Not only will we meet Margaret Caldwell, but we are very seriously considering the option of a public inquiry.

Emma Caldwell Case

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Presiding Officer,

“A toxic culture of misogyny and corruption meant the police failed so many women and girls who came forward to speak up against Packer. Instead of receiving justice and compassion, they were humiliated, dismissed and in some instances arrested, whilst the police gifted freedom to an evil predator to rape and rape again.”

Those were the powerful words of Margaret Caldwell yesterday. We know that, after the murder of her daughter Emma in 2005, Iain Packer committed 19 rapes, sexual offences or assaults. Those victims could have been protected if Iain Packer had been properly investigated.

I want to press the First Minister on the issue of who would lead any potential inquiry. This injustice has spanned 19 years and, in that time, we have had five Lord Advocates and six chief constables. Does the First Minister agree that, for any inquiry or review to be truly independent, it requires to be led by an individual who is separate and independent from Scotland’s criminal justice system?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Much like Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar makes some very important points on this issue. I will come to a few of them, if I can.

First and foremost, Anas Sarwar is right that, in Scotland, we still have a serious problem with misogyny. There is a lot of cross-party consensus on some of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking forward to tackle violence against women and girls. I hope to bring a debate to the Parliament on positive masculinity, which is a concept designed to remove and eradicate some of the toxic behaviours that we see among some young men and boys in our society. There is little difference between us on the need to tackle that pervasive issue in our society.

With regard to the timeline of the multiple failures of the justice system in relation to Emma Caldwell’s murder, as I said to Douglas Ross, I think that there is a strong argument that, for whichever type of review is held, or if there is, ultimately, a judge-led public inquiry, it should be led by somebody outwith Scotland. I do not remove that option from the table—it is firmly on the table and part of our consideration.

However, as I said to Douglas Ross, there are a few considerations that we must deal with rapidly and urgently around the on-going legal process. I must also hear directly from Margaret Caldwell—I have not yet had the opportunity to meet her, as I am waiting for the conclusion of the case before I do so.

We will give the suggestion that both Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have made serious consideration.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

There are many troubling issues with this case—misogyny, prejudice and the failure to listen to women who come forward with evidence. Among those failures is a wider culture in which Scottish institutions too often fight for their reputations rather than take the side of victims and seek to find the truth. That culture still prevails today.

Key breakthroughs in this investigation were possible only due to the work and bravery of journalists who investigated leads that officers had ignored. Distressingly, the police’s first response to that vital work was not to look at the flaws in their own investigation but to attempt to intimidate and criminalise those journalists. In this case, and today, journalists, victims and campaigners who seek to uncover an injustice in Scotland too often find themselves victims of intimidation and harassment. Does the First Minister accept that? What steps is he taking to end that culture?

The First Minister

That should not be the culture in any of our institutions. Anas Sarwar will be aware that, on the back of the work that Dame Elish Angiolini has done for the Government, we have introduced the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, which is making its way through the parliamentary process. The bill will improve the police complaints and misconduct process.

There is a lot of cross-party consensus, although there will obviously be some challenge from Opposition colleagues for the Government to consider. However, the bill includes important provisions to ensure that justice can be pursued even after a police officer retires or resigns. The bill will build on the significant improvement work that has already been delivered by policing partners since Dame Elish Angiolini’s report in November 2020.

There are things that we can do to improve the culture across our institutions. Anas Sarwar and I have often debated the national health service and the actions that the Government is taking to ensure that there are whistleblowing champions, for example. The Government takes seriously the premise that all our public institutions should encourage whistleblowing and the bringing forward of any concerns. The individuals who raise such concerns should not be the ones under scrutiny and pressure, and they should not be subject to any intimidation whatsoever.

On the issue of violence against women and girls, there are always improvements for Police Scotland to make—that almost goes without saying. I have seen comments from organisations that work tirelessly to tackle violence against women and girls that, since the formation of Police Scotland, they have noticed improvements in the investigation of rape and sexual offences. However, there is still room for improvement. There is no doubt about that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Although any inquiry will look at the failings in this case over the past 19 years, we know that there are issues that persist today. The First Minister has referenced some of them already. In 2020, an independent review of the police complaints and disciplinary system found evidence of misogyny, racism and serious discrimination issues in Police Scotland. Only last year, the outgoing chief constable, Iain Livingstone, clearly stated that

“institutional racism, sexism, misogyny and discrimination exist”

in Police Scotland.

I return to the words of Margaret Caldwell:

“Whatever a woman’s job, status, addictions or vulnerabilities, it should never be used as a reason to ignore sexual violence or treat them as a second-class citizen.”

Whether 19 years ago or today, we know that that culture leaves victims unprotected and costs lives. As a previous justice secretary and now as First Minister, how will the First Minister end the culture of prejudice and discrimination that denies so many justice?

The First Minister

I thank Anas Sarwar for reading out Margaret Caldwell’s words—they are incredibly powerful. I think that every single one of us will be moved by her words. She is absolutely right.

We are doing a lot of work, particularly through our equally safe strategy but also to challenge men’s demand for sex. I am happy to write to Anas Sarwar with greater detail.

It is important that we all recognise that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls and is completely unacceptable. Our recently published strategy to challenge men’s demand for prostitution outlines actions to support women who are in prostitution and describes a new pilot programme to improve access to support for those with experience of prostitution. Lessons learned from the pilot will inform any legislative consideration, including whether to criminalise the purchase of sex.

The Government has an important job to do in supporting women, regardless of their background or vulnerabilities. We have taken forward a range of work, a lot of which has cross-party support, to improve victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system. I will write to Anas Sarwar with more detail. Just this week, we have been piloting free court transcripts for victims of rape and sexual offences. A number of campaigners have met members from across the parties on that issue.

The Government will continue to ensure that victims are at the centre of our justice system and are protected, but there are plenty of lessons to learn. I go back to my initial responses to Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar. I will meet Margaret Caldwell, and due consideration is being given to a judge-led public inquiry.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

3. My thoughts are with Emma Caldwell’s family. The discussion that we have just heard underpins the urgent need for a judge-led inquiry.

To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-02869)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Tuesday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

An

international study has shown that Scotland has among the longest waits for and poorest access to cancer treatment. I want to tell members about Gill. Her mum, dad, cousin, aunt and two grandparents have all died of cancer. Her sister tested positive for the CHEK2 cancer gene and was given preventative surgery and reconstruction in Edinburgh. However, Gill was repeatedly denied genetic testing by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, despite her family history. She persevered and discovered that she does have that gene. Now, she has been told that the surgery that her sister received in Edinburgh is not available in Glasgow, which means far longer waits and recovery times.

When cancer rips through your family and you know that it is coming for you, the last thing that you need is to fight for care. All that Gill wants is to see her young children grow up, which is something that her mother never got to do. I ask the First Minister to look into Gill’s case and ensure that all patients, wherever they live, have the highest quality of cancer care.

The First Minister

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising an incredibly important issue. I read through the international study that he referenced and I ask him, after First Minister’s question time, to send me the details of Gill’s case. I put on record my sympathy for all the losses that Gill has experienced. Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right that the only thing that many of us want is to see our children grow up, spend time with them and have as much time with our loved ones as possible.

I am more than happy to look into the case. I can also ensure that we send Alex Cole-Hamilton some detail on the improvements that we are making in cancer care. It is still extremely challenging following the pandemic—there is no getting away from, or denying, that—but more and more people are on the 31-day and 62-day pathways. There has been some recent evaluation of our rapid cancer diagnostic services, which might be of interest to Alex Cole-Hamilton. There have been some really positive results in reducing waiting times for diagnosis for patients in the areas where the rapid cancer diagnostic services operate. I will wait for Alex Cole-Hamilton to send Gill’s details, and then we will see what the Government can do.

Livestock Worrying

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the latest reported figures highlighting the impact of livestock worrying in Scotland. (S6F-02874)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The worrying of livestock by dogs is completely unacceptable. The Scottish Government takes that very seriously, recognising the very serious welfare and financial impacts that livestock worrying can have. The figures that have been reported indicate that there are still individuals who do not recognise their responsibilities as dog owners and allow their dogs to chase livestock. Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We welcomed the introduction of Emma Harper’s Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force on 5 November 2021, and I thank Ms Harper for her continued efforts in this area. Education is a key factor in the prevention of livestock worrying incidents, and the Scottish outdoor access code, which is widely published, is clear on the rights and responsibilities of land managers and those exercising access rights.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 has proved successful in raising awareness of livestock attacks and livestock worrying and in encouraging farmers to have the confidence to report livestock worrying incidents. However, NFU Mutual’s latest report on rural crime shows that livestock worrying reports are increasing. Stakeholders including NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates have called for a change to the outdoor access code to mandate that dogs be kept on leads when in fields where livestock is present. Will the First Minister comment on how the Government can continue to raise awareness of my livestock worrying act and on whether it will consider making such an amendment to the Scottish outdoor access code as part of the upcoming land reform bill?

The First Minister

All the points that Emma Harper has made are well worthy of consideration. She is absolutely right to highlight the difference that has been made by the legislation that this Parliament enacted on livestock worrying, thanks mainly to her efforts in introducing the bill and guiding it into law. It is interesting to note that only now is the United Kingdom Government proposing to legislate similarly to cover England.

We continue to work with partners to increase awareness of dog owners’ responsibilities under the livestock worrying act, including through NatureScot’s traditional media and social media activity on responsible dog walking. I have asked the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity to consider what more we might do to raise awareness and encourage more responsible ownership and owner behaviour, especially at times such as the lambing season.

I note that some people would wish us to review the access code, as Emma Harper has said, and we will give that consideration. However, we can be rightly proud in Scotland that we have among the most open access to our land anywhere. As a nation, we want that to continue. Closing off the countryside is not the answer, and it is certainly not what Emma Harper is suggesting. We want to encourage more people to follow and adhere to the Scottish outdoor access code, especially in relation to responsible dog walking.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The devastating cost of dog attacks on livestock has doubled in Scotland since 2022. It is causing harm and distress to animals and financial hardship to farmers. The legislation really is not working, is it?

The First Minister

There are a number of reasons why the number of incidents has risen. Rachael Hamilton is suggesting that the legislation is not working, yet the UK Government is looking to legislate for England in a very similar manner. We are happy to share any information with the UK Government on the legislation that we have introduced.

We have to ensure that more is done to raise awareness of responsible dog walking right across the year and especially during particular seasons such as the lambing season. Rachael Hamilton is right. The impacts of livestock worrying are significant. They are often traumatic to farmers and, indeed, to livestock, and they also cause significant financial hardship. That is why we will do what we can to tackle livestock worrying wherever it happens in Scotland.

Sex Offenders (Identity Change)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to prevent convicted sex offenders from changing their identity. (S6F-02863)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This is a matter of public protection, which we take extremely seriously. All registered sex offenders are subject to sex offender notification requirements, and any change of name must, by law, be notified to the police. The management of offenders’ documents includes the recording of any aliases.

Before Christmas, we became aware that the United Kingdom Government was working on legislative change on name changes through its Criminal Justice Bill, and we are keen to align arrangements, where possible. That is why we have made repeated requests at ministerial and official level to see the detail of proposed amendments. I am pleased that we have received those amendments—although only this week—and we have started the serious and careful consideration that is needed to examine how they would work in Scotland and to the tight deadlines of the UK legislation.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will share my concern about news reports at the weekend about an individual with convictions for sexual assault of children who changed his name and was then appointed president of the Robert Burns World Federation, where he had access to children who were participating in Burns competitions. There are many similar cases involving individuals whose convictions predated the creation of the sex offenders register. It is clearly a very serious issue that potentially puts children at risk from predatory adults who are able to conceal their offending history by changing their name.

As the First Minister said, the UK Government proposes to make changes in the law to protect children in such circumstances. He referred to work that is on-going. Can he give us an assurance as to how quickly the Scottish Government can move to close the loophole in the law that exists, which might otherwise be very dangerous?

The First Minister

I thank Murdo Fraser for raising the issue. I was extremely concerned to read the press reports at the weekend on the case that he referenced. I can give him an absolute assurance that we are working hard to see how we can work with the UK Government to align the position in Scotland with some of the changes that it is proposing.

I understand the public’s concern around the issue, and I will always consider what changes we can make to ensure that there are effective safeguards in place, when it is within our legislative competence to do so.

Murdo Fraser will be more than aware that passports, driving licences and name changes relating to them are reserved to the UK Government, as we have just referenced. There are other ways in which people can change their name—for example, they can do so by marrying, divorcing, making a statutory declaration, using their middle name rather than their first name and so on. We will have to consider all those issues in the round. If there is anything that we can do that is within our gift, we will, and we are prepared to work with the UK Government, as Murdo Fraser asked, with urgency.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Can the First Minister provide an update on other measures to manage sex offenders, including licence and behavioural or prevention orders, and say how those measures link with notification conditions and whether they have been updated?

The First Minister

That is an important question. Following the weekend’s press reports about the case that Murdo Fraser referenced, there will be a lot of concern, so it is important to provide some reassurance. Last year, new behavioural orders were introduced to reinforce what were already stringent checks on individuals who pose a risk of sexual harm. The police can apply to courts for sexual harm prevention orders for individuals who are convicted of sexual offending, when it is believed that they pose a risk of sexual harm to the public. When such an order is granted, the individual will automatically become subject to the sex offender notification requirements.

The sexual risk order is a civil preventative order that is designed to protect the public from sexual harm. There is no need for a previous conviction.

Breach of either of those orders can result in imprisonment. In addition, licence conditions can be put in place to manage an individual’s behaviour on release from custody. Adherence to those conditions can be monitored by justice social work and electronically monitored, if that is deemed necessary.

As Audrey Nicoll will be aware, we have very stringent multi-agency public protection arrangements in place for offenders. In Scotland, the vast majority of registered sex offenders comply with the notification requirements that are imposed on them—in fact, according to the MAPPA annual report that was published in October last year, 93 per cent do so.

As I said to Murdo Fraser previously, if there is more that we can do, whether within our own competence or by working with the UK Government, to safeguard not only our children but other individuals from predatory behaviour, we will seek to work with whoever we have to in order to ensure that those safeguards are in place.

Temporary Accommodation (Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the number of people living in temporary accommodation in Glasgow has increased by 25 per cent. (S6F-02861)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Statistics that were published on Tuesday highlight the challenges that we face in tackling homelessness. That has undoubtedly been compounded by the cost of living crisis, the impact of UK Government austerity and the economic repercussions of the pandemic, which are all driving up homelessness presentations. The Home Office’s streamlined asylum process is also impacting on local authorities, especially Glasgow City Council, which is creating increased demands for homelessness services.

The Scottish Government is doing what we can within the powers and the financial constraints that we have to mitigate the impact and reduce the number of people who are in temporary accommodation. We are providing record funding of more than £14 billion to councils in 2024-25, which is a real-terms increase of 4.3 per cent compared with the current financial year. The Minister for Housing has been meeting housing conveners to discuss homelessness and housing pressures.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The report to which the First Minister referred, which I assume he has read, also says that the Scottish Government report stated that a lack of affordable housing options was partly to blame for the rise in the number of children who required temporary accommodation. Why did the First Minister vote for a £196 million cut to the affordable housing budget on the same day that the Government published a report that blamed a lack of such housing for being a cause of the hike in the number of children in temporary accommodation?

The First Minister

The Government has a strong record of building record levels of affordable housing and providing money for tackling homelessness. For example, the budget is investing £90 million for discretionary housing payments in 2024-25, which is an increase of more than £6 million on this financial year. It also includes £74 million to mitigate the bedroom tax, which is something that Sir Keir Starmer wants to retain.

Independent analysis by Crisis shows that austerity-driven policies, including the two-child limit, are undoubtedly driving up homelessness right across the country. I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that we are facing a Conservative cut of £1.6 billion to our capital budget and a £290 million cut to the financial transaction funding that is crucial to house building. It would be so much better if Scotland was not at the mercy of cruel Westminster Governments cutting our budget and if we could raise our own revenue and make spending decisions in our own country’s interests, as opposed to having to battle 14 years of austerity and a cost of living crisis that is worse than we have seen in living memory.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

At the very end of last year, the Scottish Housing Regulator published updated engagement plans for Glasgow and Edinburgh councils. The regulator found systemic failure in the delivery of services to people experiencing homelessness. What has the Scottish Government done to address those failures and to prevent them in future?

The First Minister

I go back to the independent analysis by stakeholders such as Crisis, which says that the austerity-driven policies of the UK Government are increasing homelessness figures not only in Glasgow but right across the United Kingdom.

We will continue investing in discretionary housing payments and will continue doing what we can to mitigate the worst excesses of the UK Government. We will give £35 million for specific action to end homelessness and rough sleeping, where we can.

I go back to the point that I made to Pam Duncan-Glancy: the Conservatives are threatening to cut our capital budget by £1.6 billion over the next five years and have cut by 62 per cent the financial transaction funding that is crucial to the affordable housing supply programme. If Annie Wells wants to have any influence whatsoever, rather than raising those issues here—which she has every right to do—she could use her influence with her own party colleagues to demand that the Tories’ cuts to our budget are reversed and that the 14 years of austerity that they have imposed on Scotland be halted, and halted immediately.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. If members can be concise, more members will be able to contribute.

Brian Low

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The First Minister will be aware that Police Scotland is investigating the suspected murder of Brian Low in Aberfeldy, in my constituency, on 17 February. I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to Mr Low’s family for that terrible tragedy.

Does the First Minister recognise that that awful incident has caused deep unease in the community that I represent and that there is a need for full transparency from Police Scotland about its handling of the case? Does the First Minister also believe that it is vital that all resources are applied to bring to justice anyone involved, and that Police Scotland must maintain the necessary presence locally, in order to assure the community that I represent of its safety at this incredibly worrying time?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I agree, and I express my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of Brian Low. I also give as much reassurance as I possibly can to the community of Aberfeldy, who are rightly shocked—in fact rocked—by that tragic incident.

I must be careful in what I say, because it is a live and on-going murder investigation, but I give as much reassurance as I can about safety to the community of Aberfeldy. I know that Police Scotland is taking the case extremely seriously.

I know that, given media reports in the past 24 to 48 hours, questions have been asked about the time taken between Mr Low’s death, the post-mortem and the opening of the murder investigation. I have sought assurances and have been absolutely assured that Police Scotland is working around the clock on that murder investigation and is seeking to reassure the community as best it can.

Mr Swinney’s suggestion of an increased police presence is sensible, and I will ensure that it is fed back through my office to Police Scotland. Although these issues are at the behest of the operational independence of the chief constable, it is a sensible suggestion.

It should be said that Police Scotland has been appealing to any member of the public who might have any information to come forward. Anybody who was travelling through that area and might have, for example, dashcam footage should contact the police. That can be done anonymously through Police Scotland’s online portal.

I go back to the point that John Swinney rightly raised about reassurances for the community. I will raise that with Police Scotland, and I am certain that Police Scotland will do everything in its power to provide reassurance to the community of Aberfeldy.

Ambulance Services (Aberdeen Royal Infirmary)

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On Monday, up to half of the north-east’s ambulance fleet—18 ambulances—were stuck outside Aberdeen royal infirmary. A paramedic told

The Press and Journal

that they are unable to help people who are most in need because they are repeatedly tied up. The situation is now so bad that earlier this month a shop worker in Dyce who was covered in blood after being attacked and left almost unconscious by robbers had to be driven to hospital by her employer because the ambulance service was too busy. What immediate action will the Scottish Government take to address the on-going crisis across the north-east?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Tess White is right to raise that issue. The level of ambulance stacking, the waits and the turnaround times at the ARI in particular are simply not acceptable. I am afraid that there is no reason that can justify that level of wait. I have been extremely concerned about the reports that we have heard from paramedics directly.

I am more than happy for the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to write to Tess White—I will ensure that he does so—with the full details of the conversations that we are having with NHS Grampian and the actions that it is taking. For example, it is looking at doing more to increase discharge planning in order to maintain patient flow and increase alternative care pathways for ambulance clinicians to support patients in the community, as opposed to coming to the ARI. NHS Grampian is also expanding the site’s acute capacity, having recently opened 32 new acute beds at Aberdeen royal infirmary. Increasing the capacity will help with in-patient flow through the ARI and, I hope, the issue of ambulance stacking.

However, it is a very serious issue indeed. I am not happy at all about the continued long turnaround times at the ARI in particular. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care writes to Tess White with full details of the actions that are being taken.

Rail Infrastructure Spending

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members of my voluntary entry in the register of interests.

Members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers are rallying outside Parliament today against a £315 million cut to Scotland’s safety-critical rail infrastructure spending. They say, “Rail cuts cost lives.” Seventy front-line maintenance workers have just been made redundant and a further 80 jobs are now at risk.

Which is correct: the Government’s assertion to Parliament that rail infrastructure spending is rising, or the view of experienced railway workers who are out there in the real world, on the front line, which is supported by all the empirical evidence, that Scotland’s rail infrastructure budgets and jobs are being axed and that, as a result, the health and safety of workers and passengers is being put at risk?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We, as the Government, and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will have regular engagement with rail trade unions, including the RMT. Investment in rail infrastructure is rising, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has outlined. We appreciate and share the RMT’s view that rail safety should absolutely be prioritised, but we do not agree with its assertion that rail infrastructure funding is being cut.

We will continue to meet the trade unions regularly, and my understanding is that the cabinet secretary recently wrote to the RMT to address some of the assertions that it made in previous correspondence. We will continue to engage where we can and to make sure that rail safety is an utmost priority not just for our staff—that is crucial, of course—but for those who use the rail network. Safety continues to be an utmost priority for this Government.

HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Stirling

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Disturbances at HMP YOI Stirling continue almost daily and have a serious detrimental effect on residents and the local community. The Scottish Prison Service has attempted to consult and to rectify the situation, but nothing that has been implemented to date has made any significant or lasting difference. Residents believe that the prison is out of control. What further action can the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs take to support the residents and vulnerable inmates in that prison?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs continues to engage with the Prison Service on the issue, and my understanding is that she has met Alexander Stewart as well.

I take some exception to the suggestion that the estate is “out of control”. I do not agree with that assertion in any way whatsoever. We know that, through the actions that were taken, there was a slightly quieter period over Christmas, but there have been incidents in the past couple of weeks, which, rightly and understandably, have caused concern to residents. An action plan is in place and I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs engages again with Alexander Stewart in order to give him an update on the actions that are being taken.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Paul Sweeney. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.

12:45 Meeting suspended.

12:47 On resuming—

Marie Curie’s Great Daffodil Appeal 2024

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members of the public are welcome in the gallery, but I invite those who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly, please, because we are about to start our next item of business.

I say to members that we will meet again at 2 pm; therefore, although I appreciate the importance of the debate, I will have to ensure that all members stick to their allocated and agreed speaking times, to allow the staff to do what they need to do to ensure that we are ready to start again at 2 pm.

The next item of business is a member’s business debate on motion S6M-11892, in the name of Paul Sweeney, on Marie Curie’s great daffodil appeal 2024. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes Marie Curie’s Great Daffodil Appeal 2024, which runs throughout March; considers the Great Daffodil Appeal to be Marie Curie’s most prominent awareness-raising appeal; notes that Marie Curie is the largest provider of palliative and end of life care for adults in Scotland; understands that Marie Curie has found that around one in three working age people who die do so in poverty; considers that deprivation and its associated challenges are exacerbated at the end of life; recognises that Marie Curie is able to support people to die at home, if that is their wish, through its Hospice Care at Home team, in 31 out of 32 local authority areas; commends the work of the two Marie Curie Hospices in Edinburgh and Glasgow in providing inpatient care and support for community palliative care; further commends Marie Curie volunteers who, through its companion service, help to tackle isolation and loneliness at the end of life; understands that Marie Curie cared for and supported almost 8,000 people in Scotland in 2022-23 to die in a place of their own choosing; further understands that, despite the best efforts of Marie Curie and other providers of palliative and end of life care, demand for palliative care will increase as Scotland’s ageing population means that by 2040, 60,000 people will die with palliative care needs, which is 10,000 more per year than currently; considers that this rising need for palliative care places a burden on unscheduled care services, reportedly costing the NHS £190 million per year, and unpaid carers, many of whom are ageing or ill themselves, to deliver care and support; further considers that it is likely that many will require more complex palliative care support, as people projected to die with multi-morbidities will reportedly increase by 82%; believes that the current unmet need and growing demand for palliative care will ensure that the care and support from Marie Curie remains an essential service in Scotland; notes the belief that there is a need for a sustainable funding settlement for palliative care, given that less than 40% of Marie Curie costs are covered by commissioned income, and further notes the encouragement for as many people as possible to support the Marie Curie Great Daffodil Appeal in March 2024.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I rise to mark Marie Curie’s great daffodil appeal, which runs throughout the month of March. It is an opportunity to raise awareness and funds to help Marie Curie continue to carry out its vital work in Scotland.

Marie Curie is Scotland’s largest provider of end-of-life care and palliative care for adults. Last year, the charity supported 8,000 terminally ill people in Scotland to die with dignity, ensuring that they were comfortable, well looked after and able to die in a place of their choosing.

Marie Curie operates in 31 of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, but service levels vary across the country. Although Glasgow and Edinburgh are served by dedicated Marie Curie hospices, areas outside the central belt largely have hospice care at home.

Marie Curie services take a significant amount of the strain off the national health service, but commissions from health and social care partnerships cover only 40 per cent of their costs. As the demand for palliative care increases in Scotland—10,000 more people will require palliative care by 2040, which is a 20 per cent increase on the current figure—funding for health and social care partnerships is actually being cut. Nine out of 10 Scots will need palliative care at the end of their lives, so every citizen has a stake in it.

Scotland’s increasing population of people who are over the age of 85 is having the biggest bearing on increasing demand for hospice care. Unfortunately, it is estimated that, by 2040, the incidence of dementia as the main cause of death will rise by 185 per cent.

Recruiting and retaining staff in Marie Curie hospices is proving to be difficult. Hospices simply cannot match the agenda for change pay rise that was rightly given to NHS staff, because no additional funding was made available to them. It is therefore critical that, with demand for palliative care rising in the coming years, we have a more sustainable and fairer funding settlement for the hospices so that Marie Curie can continue to be there for people when they need it.

It is no good simply having a negative feedback loop in which people are stuck in acute hospitals, dying in inappropriate conditions, often without dignity, when they could have a hospice bed, but the hospice cannot be staffed because the staff are not there. It is a perverse and cruel situation for people to be in. That is why initiatives such as the great daffodil appeal are so vital to Marie Curie. When people donate to or take part in fundraising efforts, they make a significant contribution to ensuring that comfort and care is available for those who need it at the most critical moment in their lives.

The work of Marie Curie goes beyond palliative and end-of-life care. I pay tribute in particular to the extraordinary volunteers who give up their time to become Marie Curie companions. They are trained to provide support for people who are approaching the end of their life, and to the families of those people. Those volunteers are truly inspiring; they are there for people at the most difficult of times, providing practical and emotional support such as helping around the house, doing the shopping or talking through how people are feeling when they are faced with such a devastating diagnosis and the end of their life.

The dying in the margins research that was conducted by Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow found that one in three working-age people who die do so in poverty. It is clear that deprivation is exacerbated at the end of life, and I feel that that is a particularly cruel injustice to so many Scots. I have been personally affected by the stories that were shared in the dying in the margins exhibition that came to Parliament some months ago. Those stories should infuriate us all, and invigorate, encourage and inspire us to be stronger advocates for our constituents so that they have housing that is fit for purpose and the social and financial support that they need to empower them to make real decisions with real agency about where they choose to end their lives.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit the Marie Curie hospice at Stobhill in Glasgow. I grew up with that place and it was the local charity that was supported by Turnbull high school in Bishopbriggs, where I was educated. It was particularly interesting to see the results of the huge fundraising effort that took place 14 years ago—it was probably the biggest public fundraising effort that has happened in Glasgow in recent years—to raise £16 million to rebuild the hospice. Half of that money came from

Evening Times

readers in Glasgow, which, I think, signifies the importance of that hospice to people across the city.

I was particularly struck by a patient from Glasgow’s east end whom I met there, who very sadly passed away just a couple of days after I visited. She had a difficult upbringing. She had a chaotic childhood and had used drugs, and she faced difficult circumstances, but she finally felt that she had got her life back on track and she was in a good place with her two teenage sons. However, she then got what she thought was tonsillitis or a throat infection.

She went along to her general practitioner to seek help and persisted for more than a year with a chronic throat condition, but unfortunately she was just fobbed off and not taken seriously. When she was finally able to get a diagnosis, it was terminal. She was facing the end of her life, and she was only in her late 40s. I believe that, had she been from a more affluent part of the city and not the east end, her concerns would have been taken more seriously, she would have been approached with more agency from day 1, and she would still be alive today. Cases such as hers put the dying in the margins research into stark perspective, certainly for me, and we must do better. That is the essence of social justice. Having a conversation with her in moments of deep frustration and deep sense of grief about the life that she was robbed of will never leave me.

The great daffodil appeal is an opportunity to promote Marie Curie and all the work that it does to improve people’s lives in the most devastating and difficult of circumstances. I hope that as many people as possible will support this year’s appeal.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I thank Paul Sweeney for securing this debate, which marks the launch of the 2024 great daffodil appeal.

I am privileged to have a wonderful Marie Curie hospice at Stobhill in my constituency. As convener of the cross-party group on palliative care, I am well aware of the fantastic work that Marie Curie does not only in hospices but through the services that it provides in people’s homes across many local authority areas. Marie Curie’s dedication, care and compassion make a real difference to those who are living with terminal conditions and are often approaching the end of life, and to their families, which is important.

We are also very fortunate in having a dedicated team of fundraisers in Marie Curie. Many volunteers raise much-needed resources for many of the services that it offers. Many of the donations that are received will be from the families and friends of those who are no longer with us, but who benefited greatly from the services of Marie Curie. My heartfelt thanks go to everyone who makes a donation, no matter how large or small.

The warmth and affection towards Marie Curie sit at the heart of the great daffodil appeal. On 7 May, I will host an event with Marie Curie in the garden lobby of the Scottish Parliament that will celebrate the undoubted success of the great daffodil appeal. I hope to see members at that event.

Every year, the great daffodil appeal is important in securing much-needed resources. However, this year, it will have never been so important. The financial pressures that our network of hospices is under are significant. It has been challenging for hospices to match the very welcome pay awards that the Scottish Government has made to Scotland’s NHS and agenda for change workforce. Finding funds to do so has put particular pressure on reserves and yearly running costs, as have other factors, such as wider inflationary pressures and energy costs. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government and Scotland’s integration joint boards have been unable to respond to those pressures in a way that has been able to fully alleviate or adequately mitigate those pressures. I acknowledge the unprecedented pressures on Scotland’s budget, and I anticipate that our hospice network will continue to do a wonderful job in the year ahead, despite those challenges. However, the pressures will not go away, and there needs to be an agreed and sustainable funding model for Marie Curie and the wider hospice network in the years ahead.

I very much hope that the new Scottish palliative care strategy will take account of the need for financial sustainability, and I hope that our new national care service will entrench within it the explicit right to palliative care for the people of Scotland and drive adequate funding to the sector accordingly in a fair, equitable and sustainable way. The minister knows that I am keen to work with the Government on that. We have discussed that previously, and I hope that we can continue those discussions.

I return to the great daffodil appeal. From its inception, the hospice sector has always sought to fundraise for a significant portion of the money that it invests in services. It is up for that challenge, and it expects that to be the case. That will not and should not change, but that is different from adequate support from the public sector for financial sustainability. Both things can live together.

The great daffodil appeal is fundamental to those efforts for Marie Curie. Marie Curie is a vital and valuable partner. With Scotland’s ageing population, by 2040 an additional 10,000 people each year will need palliative and end-of-life support. That will be 60,000 people in total each year at that stage. We need to grow the hospice network, and we need to innovate so that there are new models of delivering palliative care. Both those things are required. As I said in my members’ business debate in December, I know that Marie Curie is up for that challenge because it has done that successfully previously.

When people support this year’s great daffodil appeal, they are not just supporting those who are approaching the end of life and their loved ones today; they are investing in the future of palliative and end-of-life services for tomorrow.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I

welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I congratulate Paul Sweeney on securing it.

Like other members, I have been a great supporter of Marie Curie for many years. Everyone deserves to get the right care and support at the end of life, and Marie Curie tirelessly shows compassion across all parts of Scotland, including in my Mid Scotland and Fife region. The amazing work that it does shows its full commitment.

As the motion notes, the great daffodil appeal is a phenomenal success for the charity. We are all wearing the emblem this afternoon, and Marie Curie is to be commended for the fact that it is recognised by so many individuals and organisations.

Marie Curie is the largest provider of palliative and end-of-life care in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Last March, I, like many others, supported the Marie Curie fundraising appeal at an event in the Parliament. I met once again the staff and some of the volunteers who give their time and their talents to support and care for people who are living with a terminal illness, and also their families and the carers who support them. I heard—we have heard this today as well—that over 8,000 terminally ill people across Scotland were supported in their homes or in the hospices in 2021-22. Sadly, it looks like the figures will continue to increase. As Paul Sweeney commented, there is a massive increase in the elderly population and in the number of individuals who require care.

In my area, the charity’s community nursing service made over 250 visits in Stirling and Clackmannanshire alone to support people in their homes. Back in December 2019, Marie Curie published a press release highlighting that by 2040, if current trends continue, two thirds of Scots will die at home, in a care home or in a hospice. The research by Marie Curie, the University of Edinburgh and King’s College London also warned that, without radical investment in community health and social care services to ensure that individuals are supported, there will be a continual rise in the number of people who die in hospital. We want to alleviate that. I hope that the minister will mention that when she sums up.

We need to ensure that Marie Curie nurses will be able to support everyone in Scotland who needs them. We have heard today about the difficulties that we face in funding pay awards and the difficulties due to the cost of living, which is affecting each and every one of us. Marie Curie has to raise about £250,000 a week to deliver its incredible work and cover front-line services. The fact that it does so is a major achievement for which it should be commended.

I look forward to hearing from other members and from the minister. It is vital that Marie Curie can achieve what it wants to, ensuring that individuals have the peaceful and pain-free death that we all deserve and supporting those who are affected by bereavement following deaths from cancer.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank my colleague Paul Sweeney for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am not surprised that he chose Marie Curie’s great daffodil appeal as the subject of his members’ business debate, because we have discussed many times the excellent work of Marie Curie and other hospices. He has fought with passion—and he spoke with compassion today—to raise the on-going issue of funding and sustainable resourcing of these essential services. As he mentioned, less than 40 per cent of Marie Curie’s costs are covered by commissioned income, and events such as the appeal are so important.

I will be clear: the Parliament is right to encourage as many people as possible to support the Marie Curie great daffodil appeal this year, as in other years. That encouragement should be given in order to promote the good work that the organisation does and offer people the opportunity to make any donations that they can, but it should not allow us, in this place of power, to ignore the need to properly resource those essential palliative care services.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

We have spoken in a few members’ business debates on these issues in previous months, so I pay tribute to the work that Carol Mochan is doing to highlight them.

I agree with her about the sustainable funding model, but does she recognise that the hospice sector believes that fundraising for a large part of the resource that it spends is a vital part of what it does? The sector is not seeking to dilute that, but wants sustainable, leveraged funding from the Government for the future needs for which it will have to plan.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I recognise that fundraising is part of the way that the hospice sector promotes its cause and makes sure that people are aware of the sensitive issues surrounding it. I also think that that should not detract from the fact that we should discuss how we make the sector sustainable and how we make sure that funding is available, particularly as the need for such resources increases. The member and another colleague made points about that. In this place of power, we have to take responsibility for that.

I have said this before, but it is the only way I know how to say it in order to express my feelings: everyone deserves as pain free and as peaceful a death as possible, surrounded by those who love them, in a place that comforts them and in which the choice is theirs. We can all agree that, at some point, we will be touched by the death of a loved one. Should that loved one need end-of-life care over a period of time—palliative care—we would all wish it to be provided in the best way possible, by trained and sensitive care staff who have the knowledge, time and training that are needed to provide support for the physical deterioration as well as the emotional needs of our loved ones and their wider family.

If the chamber will bear with me, I will take the opportunity to mention a meeting that Paul Sweeney and I had with Brain Tumour Research. Among the issues that it raised with us was the impact of a diagnosis on a person’s family and their wider friend network. The diagnosis is often given to young people, including young women who have their lives ahead of them and have families. I thank Theo and Thomas for coming to the Parliament and for talking to us about the important issue of how we support people emotionally as well as the wider way in which we support research into very serious conditions that can cause end of life. It is heartening that Marie Curie is there. As we have said many times in the chamber, we support the hospice care-at-home teams and its two hospices.

I recognise that I am running out of time. I wanted to mention inequalities, but they have already been touched on. I simply cannot accept that someone who is dying cannot get the care and comfort that they deserve. In a time of need such as the end of life, surely we must all be looking to find solutions to provide all the care and comfort that are necessary. I know that the daffodil appeal helps to achieve that aim.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I, too, thank Paul Sweeney for securing the time in the chamber for this important annual debate. The great daffodil appeal, which is the most prominent awareness-raising appeal for Marie Curie, runs throughout March.

I take the opportunity, as others have, to thank the staff and volunteers of Marie Curie, who deliver services in 31 out of 32 local authority areas, including its two hospices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the at-home services for those who choose to die at home. Volunteers provide support through its companion service, tackling isolation and loneliness. Companions also support families after someone has died. That friendly, familiar support after the death of a loved one is an invaluable offering—I am sure it is valued by many families around the country.

Marie Curie also provides support for planning for end of life. I have previously said in other debates in the chamber that, as a country, we need to do more to support and encourage conversations about what a good death looks like for individuals. As the motion notes, for many people those will be about supporting their desire to die at home.

The way in which palliative care is delivered is already having to adapt to the demand for such support as well as to our ageing population. However, the motion notes that such demand will increase significantly by 2040, in that

“60,000 people will die with palliative care needs, which is 10,000 more per year than currently”.

Further pressure will undoubtedly come from the more complex nature of the health conditions that patients have as a result of their living longer. It is difficult, at the current point, to predict those for the future. The motion suggests that they will increase by 82 per cent, but that figure will undoubtedly vary across local authorities and will depend on socioeconomic factors. That should be kept under review, and services should be supported to adapt to deliver support to people who are in the greatest need.

The diversity of palliative care services and the range of conditions that they can support are vast, but I am not sure that the public, especially people who have never had contact with such services, have an understanding of that diversity. For example, people with conditions such as heart failure, which can be managed for long periods of time, can receive palliative care when it is needed. I believe that we should amplify the message about diversity in the sector wherever we can.

As I am the co-convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on carers, it would be remiss of me not to mention the support that carers need when a loved one is receiving palliative care. Carers take on financial, emotional and physical burdens without a second thought, to support the people they love. As do many other organisations, Marie Curie provides valuable support to families. However, we must ensure that those families are meaningfully involved in end-of-life planning, they understand what will happen and what support is available and, crucially, they are allowed to express how they want to be supported along with their loved ones.

In the coming years more will need to be done to support the provision of palliative care, to ensure that everyone can receive the fantastic level of care that many members across the chamber have articulated during the debate. I thank Marie Curie’s staff, its volunteers and everyone who will donate to the great daffodil appeal this year.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As other members have done, I pay tribute to all Marie Curie nurses, staff and volunteers for their herculean efforts on behalf of dying people and their families. I welcome those of them who are in the public gallery to listen to the debate. I thank Paul Sweeney for allowing Parliament to hold the debate, and I acknowledge his strong personal commitment to the issues that we are discussing.

No one who read Marie Curie’s briefing for the debate can have escaped its stark warning about projected future demand for its services. That is a product of the fact that our population is ageing, but Paul Sweeney rightly suggested that it simply means that we are all invested in the issue and have a stake in it.

Another point that clearly emerged for me was that the difficulty is not just about demand and numbers, but about complexity. Many people are living longer with comorbidities that make such treatment more complex. Gillian Mackay was right to talk about the diversity that is required in the sector’s provision: covers a broad sweep including in-patient hospice care and hospice-at-home care. Paul Sweeney, too, was right to draw attention to the companion service, which does so much to address the needs not only of individuals but of their families, and to tackle the problem of isolation.

We are seeing recognition of the increasing strain that will be placed on Marie Curie’s funding. Bob Doris was absolutely right to say that that will continue to involve a mixed model in which fundraising effort is an integral and important part of Marie Curie’s work. It does not want to roll back from that, but the requirement to provide security of funding, given the likely demand for its services, will be essential.

I note that, this morning, the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee published a report on end-of-life choices and assisted dying, which rightly draws attention to many issues that Marie Curie addresses, including patchiness of funding and access to services. I drew encouragement from the committee’s finding that there is no evidence that, in jurisdictions where there are assisted dying laws, there is diversion from palliative care services. Indeed, in many instances, there is reinforcement of funding that allows greater access to, and improvement of, those services.

I will take a moment to acknowledge Marie Curie’s engagement with me in the context of my member’s bill on assisted dying, which I hope to introduce to Parliament shortly.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

I look forward to continuing to engage with Marie Curie once the bill is introduced.

For now, I again pay tribute to the work that all the staff, volunteers and nurses do, and to the contribution that is made by the wider public through the great daffodil appeal, which I am sure will enjoy overwhelming public support again this year, in order—as Carol Mochan said—to provide the care and comfort that our dying people need and, frankly, deserve.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I thank Paul Sweeney for bringing the motion to the chamber today for debate.

It is always a pleasure and a great privilege to speak about Marie Curie and the invaluable service that it provides. Today is no exception. The Marie Curie great daffodil appeal is an initiative that embodies compassion, resilience and community spirit. The appeal runs throughout March each year and champions the cause of providing care and emotional support to people across Scotland who are at the end of life.

The great daffodil appeal is not just a fundraising campaign—it is a symbol of unity and support. By simply donating and wearing a daffodil pin, thousands of people across Scotland demonstrate their solidarity with people who are affected by terminal illness. Volunteers, who embody the spirit of community support that Scotland is renowned for, ensure through their invaluable contributions that Marie Curie continues to offer its crucial services to people who are in need.

In my constituency of Kirkcaldy, in Fife, Marie Curie has been a saving grace for hundreds of families over the years. In 2022-23, Marie Curie made thousands of visits in Fife to support terminally ill patients. It visited more than 500 patients and NHS Fife is incredibly lucky to have 33 Marie Curie volunteers who help to deliver essential services to my constituents. I hear at first hand from constituents about the impact that Marie Curie has made on Kirkcaldy.

Marie Curie nurses and volunteers have been a comforting presence during difficult times for many families across Fife. They have offered not just medical care, but emotional support, understanding and a listening ear to people who are in their most vulnerable moments.

I am constantly in awe of my community and the impressive fundraising efforts that are held annually across the area to support the charity. Our community groups raise awareness every year to support people who are living with terminal illness, and I pay tribute to them and recognise the crucial role that they play in organising fundraising events and activities, and in helping to raise awareness.

As many people will be aware, NHS Fife launched a fully integrated hospice-at-home service, which is run by Marie Curie and NHS Fife. It has reduced the hospital costs of end-of-life care. With Fife having a larger older population and some very rural areas, avoiding hospital admissions whenever possible is always an important aim. The response to the hospice-at-home service in Fife has been incredible. People who have been supported by the service experienced 40 per cent fewer hospital admissions and 68 per cent fewer visits to accident and emergency departments, and were two and a half times as likely to be in the comfort of their home to die.

However, the cost of delivering that crucial and invaluable work is increasing year on year. Marie Curie research projects that, by 2040, propelled by our ageing population, up to 10,000 more people will be dying with palliative care needs. That represents a 20 per cent increase in demand and 90 per cent of all deaths in Scotland. The complexities of multimorbidities, a significant rise in dementia-related deaths and the shift towards community settings for end-of-life care all underscore the urgent need for support and innovative solutions.

Our palliative care services must be fully supported in order that they can respond to the rising demand that stems from changing demographics. That is one of the main reasons why the great daffodil appeal presents a crucial opportunity to support one of Scotland’s greatest community assets. Support that is garnered from the great daffodil appeal goes towards several of Marie Curie’s important programmes: hospice care at home, information and support services, in-person hospice, and companion and home support are just a few of the extraordinary initiatives that Marie Curie provides across Scotland.

In closing, I urge that we all support the great daffodil appeal in any way that we can—be it through volunteering, fundraising or simply wearing a daffodil pin. Let us unite in our efforts to provide hope, care and support for all the people who are in their final moments, and their families. Together, we can make a difference in the lives of many by demonstrating the true spirit of companionship and community that defines Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Paul Sweeney for securing the debate. I commend the work of Marie Curie and wish it well with the daffodil appeal. As well as commending its care services, through which it made 1,532 visits across the NHS Highland area last year, I commend its work on raising awareness of end-of-life care.

Palliative care is not help to die; it is help to live. When days are few, they are precious, and we need to savour each and every one of them. That should not depend on a person’s wealth or where they live. The Marie Curie and University of Glasgow report “Dying in the Margins; The Cost of Dying” shines a light on health inequalities, which occur right through to end-of-life care. There is a 24-year difference between the healthy life expectancy of people who live in our most-deprived communities and that of those who live in our least-deprived communities, which is why I am proposing a “right to food” bill. Given that diet is so important to health and life expectancy, I hope that that would make a difference.

Not only are less-wealthy people more likely to die younger, but they are also less likely to have the facilities that they need to make them comfortable. Even heat is unattainable: 94 per cent of people are concerned about terminally ill family members and friends being unable to pay for energy, which is simply not right, at the end of life. People who live in rural areas are far less likely to be able to access palliative care, because there are very few health professionals, and people live some distance from services. It is often down to the dedication and good will of a few health professionals that people are cared for at the end of life and, indeed, that they can choose to die at home. I pay tribute to those professionals.

Paul Sweeney highlighted the difficulties that Marie Curie faces with increasing demand, increasing costs and decreasing funding. The organisation is asking for funding to be put on a formal footing in order to cut down the time that is spent on negotiations for funding of care. It also asks that the Scottish child payment be extended to terminally ill people who have dependent children. It would be targeted at those who are in most need, given the lower life expectancy of people who live in the most-deprived areas.

For too long, palliative care has been largely ignored, even though most of us will need it. People need to be able to choose where to die, and they have a right to die at home. It is important for a person whose life is drawing to a close that they have good-quality palliative care, but it is also really important that their loved ones have support. Good-quality palliative care in a place of our choosing should be available at the end of life, as should support for family and friends. We all need the right to palliative care.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the debate and thank Paul Sweeney for securing it. The great daffodil appeal is one of the most iconic and recognised fundraising drives of the year. People all over the country wear their yellow daffodil badges, as we do today, with a sense of pride that they are supporting Marie Curie to deliver its world-class palliative care services in our communities and its hospices. I thank all the nurses, staff and volunteers who are part of Marie Curie.

One area of interest in the 2024 appeal is end-of-life poverty and improving the financial package that is available for palliative care. Rhoda Grant has just laid out the specific heating and nutrition challenges that some people face at the end of their life, especially in rural areas.

As a registered nurse and a member of the Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I have an interest in our social care sector and feel passionately about ensuring that we equip the sector and, indeed, our population for years to come. Across Scotland and internationally, people are ageing better and living longer lives. That is welcome, but it presents challenges, because with age comes a greater risk of health complications and a greater need for social care support and services.

The health committee has carried out several inquiries relating to social care in Scotland, and the conclusions have always had similar themes. One of the main themes is that, as a society, we must be smarter and better prepared to deal with our ageing population, as Marie Curie suggests in its briefing for the debate.

The evidence shows that there must be an onus on healthcare professionals to have realistic conversations with people about their retirement. Future care must best support people staying at home, if that is their choice, and it is absolutely paramount that the care is suited to their needs. That is why the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill is so important.

Marie Curie is at the forefront of pioneering research in Scotland. Indeed, one of its most recent publications, which was produced jointly with the University of Edinburgh, suggests that, by 2040, two thirds of Scots—66 per cent of the population—will die at home, in a care home or in a hospice. Allowing more people to have the opportunity to die in a place that they choose is essential if we are to meet future care needs and reduce the demands on our acute services.

However, as Marie Curie points out, to achieve that, palliative care must have a fair funding settlement. One of the ways that Marie Curie suggests that can be achieved is through the Scottish Government working to a minimum target of 50 per cent statutory funding for independent hospice care providers, including those that provide hospice care at home. Given that, across Dumfries and Galloway, 4,359 visits were made to 542 people and patients by the region’s 31 dedicated Marie Curie nurses, I would welcome the minister’s comments on that ask by Marie Curie. Support from those dedicated nurses allowed 72.5 per cent of those with palliative and end-of-life care needs to die in a place of their choosing. However, again, funding is crucial to enable that support to grow to meet future demand.

It is welcome that, across South Scotland, Marie Curie has seven shops that are raising funds and more than 896 dedicated volunteers. There are shops in Stranraer, Newton Stewart and Dumfries, and there is a supporters group in Lockerbie. I will visit the Dumfries shop with Marie Curie leadership a week on Monday, and I look forward to continuing to support its work.

I again welcome the debate, and I congratulate and thank Marie Curie for the fantastic work that it does day in, day out to support those who require end-of-life and palliative care and their friends and family.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Paul Sweeney for lodging the motion for this debate and everyone in the chamber for their contributions. I also welcome the Marie Curie team who have joined us in the gallery. I am sure that they will watch the beginning of the debate on the Scottish Parliament website.

The First Minister sat beside me to listen to Paul Sweeney’s opening speech and said to me that this is a matter that is close to his heart. It is probably fair to say that the work that Marie Curie does is close to the hearts of everyone in the chamber.

Emma Harper was absolutely correct to talk about the iconic daffodil. When I was home on Islay last weekend, some daffodils had come out at the back of my house, and the first thing that I thought of was Marie Curie, so I say to the team that the campaign gets into the public consciousness very well.

I am sure that members will remember that, in December, we stood together in the chamber to celebrate Marie Curie’s 75th anniversary. It has been an amazing 75 years. Marie Curie staff and volunteers have pioneered palliative and end-of-life care, and the organisation has become a significant health and social care partner that provides invaluable support to people and their families at the most challenging points in their life, as well as supporting other health and social care services and teams that deliver palliative and end-of-life care. It is that friendly familiar support that Gillian Mackay noted.

Many colleagues across the chamber have reflected on how much Marie Curie means to them personally. That highlights the broad scope and reach of Marie Curie’s work and why it is so important. Alexander Stewart and David Torrance talked about the sense of companionship and community that is reflected in their communities, as well as Marie Curie’s constant work to raise funds.

It would be remiss of me not to recognise the work of the Marie Curie fundraising teams across my Argyll and Bute constituency. I thank them for their tireless fundraising work.

The work that Marie Curie and its volunteers do, day in, day out, is often done under extremely trying circumstances. It is, as others have reflected, really important; indeed, it is no mean feat, which is why I thank all Marie Curie staff and volunteers across Scotland for their unending hard work and for taking the time to be here today. As Liam McArthur said, we all have a stake in this.

In preparing for the debate, I was drawn back to the Marie Curie quote that I shared during the 75th anniversary debate in December:

“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”

I feel that that is particularly poignant today, given the subjects that have been raised in Paul Sweeney’s motion and which we have discussed.

During the debate in December, I talked about the round-table meeting that I had convened earlier that month with health and social care partnership chief officers and independent hospices, and I noted that those who had participated had welcomed the frank and open dialogue. Since then, I have visited St Andrew’s hospice in North Lanarkshire to hear about the care that it provides and the challenges that it faces with regard to inequalities. I know that my officials are continuing to meet hospices and chief officers to discuss the draft guidance framework that will support more consistent local planning and commissioning of independent hospice care, and I hope that we can resolve some of the challenges through working in partnership, as Marie Curie has called for.

Paul Sweeney’s motion highlights the increased need for and complexity of palliative care projected by Marie Curie research up to 2040, as well as the financial challenges faced by those nearing the end of life. Last year, I, like many colleagues in the chamber, visited the “Cost of Dying” photographic exhibition, which illustrated the impact of socioeconomic circumstances on end-of-life experiences. Like Paul Sweeney, I was very much touched by the poignant images that were displayed alongside the participants’ harrowing stories, and I was inspired by the courage and strength of the individuals who shared their stories at such a difficult time in their lives.

We recognise that too many people are living in poverty, which is why we are committed to breaking the cycle of poverty in Scotland. We are providing more support for social justice than ever before, with our spending on social security benefits forecast to increase by nearly £1 billion in 2024-25.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for giving such a constructive response to the debate. Might she consider improving the obligations on landlords in the forthcoming housing legislation to ensure that they more readily assist people who face a terminal illness by adapting their homes so that they can stay there instead of ending up in hospital, as they otherwise would?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Paul Sweeney for that intervention and recognise exactly the story from the “Cost of Dying” exhibition that he has referred to. I will continue to have discussions with the Minister for Housing on the matter and am happy to raise with him the issue that the member has just raised with me.

I should add that we continue to support free welfare, debt and income maximisation advice services with funding of more than £12.3 million.

Being diagnosed with a terminal illness is undoubtedly one of the most challenging things that a person can go through. No terminally ill person, or their family, should have to worry about their finances at such a difficult time, so the Government is ensuring that adult disability benefit applications from people with a terminal illness are fast-tracked to provide them with the support that they are entitled to as quickly as possible.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to continue for the moment, but I will take it once I have finished this section of my response, if that is okay.

We also ensure that those who are terminally ill automatically receive the highest rates of assistance that they are entitled to, with no award reviews. Moreover, they are eligible for that support straight away, with no qualifying period.

I welcomed the debate on the dying in the margins project and had a really helpful follow-up meeting with Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow, in which I committed to bringing the issues raised to a future ministerial oversight group on poverty. It is another area where we need to work in partnership to understand the impact of poverty at such a difficult time in people’s lives.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I echo Paul Sweeney’s comments about the minister’s constructive response to the debate. As a lot of the issues that she has touched on will undoubtedly be in the updated palliative care and end-of-life care action plan, can she give us an update on when that revised or updated plan might be ready?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is perfect timing, as I was just about to say that, through the new palliative care strategy that we are currently developing, we are prioritising work on future care planning and are looking at what information is available, the systems that are in place and what can be done to promote the use of such planning across Scotland. The Scottish Government is proud to be working with Marie Curie and the hospice sector across Scotland to build a new palliative and end-of-life care strategy, which we anticipate will be published for consultation in the spring. I was also thinking that, given the collaborative approach being taken by members across the chamber, it might be helpful if I arrange a briefing for MSPs when the strategy is launched.

We have all agreed a shared aim—that everyone in Scotland receives well-co-ordinated, timely and high-quality palliative care, with death and bereavement support based on people’s needs and preferences, including support for families and carers. We also have a shared principle—we are committed to equitable and timely access to general palliative care and specialist palliative care services as needed by each person of any age living with any illness in all places. We will, as Carol Mochan said, work together to find solutions.

Once again, I thank Marie Curie staff and volunteers for their tireless work, and I look forward to working with them closely on our shared aims over the months ahead.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I take this opportunity to thank members for their co-operation in recognising in their contributions the time constraints under which we are operating.

13:36 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Education and Skills

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the portfolio on this occasion is education and skills. Members wishing to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is a lot of interest in asking supplementaries and therefore, as far as possible, the questions and responses will need to be short.

Disabled Young People (Life Skills)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to provide access to life skills programmes for disabled young people. (S6O-03134)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Since 2016, the Scottish Government, through the children, young people, families early intervention fund and the adult learning and empowering communities third sector fund, has provided core funding of just over £106 million to 115 organisations to deliver support that tackles inequalities and child and family poverty, improves learning and builds skills. Our transition fund delivers often life-changing support to help young disabled people with the transition after leaving school. Individual institutions support the specific needs of young people to acquire life skills in different ways across school and post-school interventions.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Following a report from disability charity Scope that found that disabled people often face regular extra expenditure of a whopping £975 per month,

does the minister agree that further action must be taken to ensure that disabled young people have access to the highest-quality support services in schools to help equip them with essential life skills in their post-education lives?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am sure that the member will appreciate that the post-16 landscape is more my area of expertise—assuming that I have one—than schools.

As the member knows, life skills is not a specific area of the curriculum and is covered by a range of subjects. It often falls to the individual school to determine what offering it will provide. I recognise that we must do more for disabled young people than simply furnish them with life skills—we need to help them to maximise their full potential. That was one of the topics under discussion when I met a range of disabled young people’s organisations just last month: we were looking at what more we could be doing to support young people into meaningful career opportunities.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

In Scotland, we have made investments in and offered programmes to support our disabled young people. That could not be further away from the Tory-led United Kingdom Government approach of austerity, which has, according to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, resulted in gross and systematic violations of disabled people’s rights. Does the minister agree that the best approach to supporting the educational development of disabled young people is one of inclusion and support as opposed to one of exclusion and austerity?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I agree with the member. It is entirely right for inclusion to be at the heart of our education policy and our legislation. That enables children and young people to receive the support that they need in order to reach their full potential, as I touched on earlier.

The Government is committed to improving the experiences and outcomes for people with additional support needs. Spending on additional support for learning reached a record high of £830 million in the most recently published figures. It is not only our approach to education that is different; the Scottish Government is unique in committing to halving the disability employment gap. We focus on reducing the gap in employment rates between disabled and non-disabled people.

Teaching Bursaries (Unused Funds)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government to where within the education budget it reallocated any unused funds for teaching bursaries in 2023-24. (S6O-03135)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

To manage emerging in-year budgetary pressures, transfers are made between various budget lines through budget revisions. The transfers are managed collectively across all budget lines and it is not possible to attribute an individual reduction in one budget line to an increase in another. However, in general, those transfers are used to manage wider pressures across portfolios, including things such as pay. All budget revisions are reported collectively to Parliament through the autumn and spring budget revisions.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I think that we can agree that the current pressure-cooker environment in our classrooms, and in particular the rise in violence and aggression, is driving teachers out of the profession and making those who would have considered entering it think again. What action is the Government taking to challenge such classroom environments? Will the Government commit to redistributing any of the unused bursaries from this year to promote teaching as an attractive profession, particularly for people with skills in computing, modern languages, and science, technology and engineering and mathematics subjects, for which recruitment targets have been missed?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We introduced teaching bursaries back in 2017-18. That scheme provides a £20,000 bursary payment to individual career changers for their initial teacher education. Originally it was to cover teacher training only in STEM subjects, but in the past year we broadened that to include Gaelic.

The budget was reduced in the past year due to reduced demand, but the member raises a general point about how we can make teaching an attractive profession. One of the positives in Scotland is that we have the highest-paid teachers in the United Kingdom, and there are other positives in the Scottish education system.

The member has spoken of some of the current challenges in our classrooms, and I am well-sighted on those specific challenges. However, we need to make teaching an attractive career, which is why we invest in the teaching bursary scheme. It is also why we provide funding around the preferential waiver payment, which allows people to tick a box and go anywhere throughout Scotland to teach and be awarded an additional £8,000. We are also protecting teacher numbers by putting an additional £145 million in this year’s budget to protect the number of teachers and support staff at local level.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can take a supplementary question from Kenneth Gibson, as long as it is brief and the response is likewise.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

A decade and a half of Labour, coalition and Tory UK Government austerity has impacted across the Scottish budget. What impact has that had specifically on education? How is the Government working to support the teaching profession in such a challenging financial climate?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The member is right. Undoubtedly, we have less money in the Scottish Government this financial year because of decisions that are taken elsewhere. Despite that, we have been able to protect the education and skills budget. It will grow to more than £4.8 billion, which includes funding to protect teacher numbers, as I intimated in my response to the previous question. That is a testament to the value that this Government places on education.

Colleges (Meetings)

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with representatives of the college sector. (S6O-03136)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I met college chairs and principals at a Colleges Scotland event in Stirling on 30 January. More generally, the Scottish Government meets representatives of the college sector frequently, through in-person meetings, visits, online meetings and written communication with individual colleges, the sector as a whole and representative bodies. I will personally be meeting college reps on both Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

A recent Fraser of Allander Institute report on the economic contribution of colleges highlights the crucial role they play in our green transition by equipping individuals with essential skills for the energy sector.

Within the energy space, North East Scotland College is working with partners across business, education and technology to deliver learning that will meet our future skilled workforce needs. Recently, the First Minister visited Aberdeen and confirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to the north-east as a powerhouse for Scotland’s economic development. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that colleges such as NESCol will be supported to deliver on the skills element of national and regional green economic policies, given the challenging funding landscape?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Our education and skills system is playing a crucial role in the transition to net zero, and colleges and universities are key anchors for that transition. In what has been the most challenging budget in the history of devolution, we have provided nearly £2 billion for colleges and universities. Indicative funding allocations for individual colleges are expected to be set out by the Scottish Funding Council this spring, as is the usual practice.

I will visit NESCol on 11 March, and I look forward to hearing more about the good work of the college and any challenges that it is facing.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are a number of supplementary questions. I want to get them all in, but they will need to be brief.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The last time that I met representatives of the college sector was at an apprenticeship and qualifications round-table meeting last week. What impact assessments have been done of the effect on skills and apprenticeships of the £59 million cut to the net college resource budget?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

All such measures are the subject of analysis. I say to Liam Kerr, as I have said to his colleagues, that if the Scottish Government’s budget goes down, our ability to support things such as the college and apprenticeship budget is impacted. That is just a matter of fact, regrettable though it is. If Mr Kerr—as is his right—believes that we should have allocated more money to that budget, he had an opportunity, through the budget process, to bring amendments to the budget. I am struggling to recall that happening.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Unison and the Educational Institute of Scotland are both taking part in strike action today because their members are now 18 months overdue a pay rise. What discussions has the minister had with College Employers Scotland about Unison’s proposals to develop an avoidance of redundancy fund and provide advance payment to staff to alleviate financial hardship, and whether he would be willing to facilitate those proposals?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I raised that issue with College Employers Scotland informally a couple of weeks ago, on the back of a constructive meeting that I had with Unison. I would like to see them both back around the table to discuss the matter on the basis that has been suggested, because the Government is not in a position to put further funds into that process. However, it is a very valid ask from the trade union, and for the employers and the union to find agreement around it would be all to the good.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On Monday, I spoke to furious staff and students from the Elmwood campus in Cupar who are trying to save the animal care unit. Can the minister have a discussion with Scotland’s Rural College management about how he can assist to keep that important unit for staff and students?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am entirely aware of Mr Rennie’s constituency interest in this, not least because I saw his DIY video on the subject earlier this week—seriously, I entirely understand where he is coming from. It is not for me to engage directly with SRUC on that issue, but I assure the member that I have asked my officials to seek an update on the matter from SRUC.

Further Education (Pay)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with colleges and trade unions regarding pay in the further education sector. (S6O-03137)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I meet campus unions on a biannual basis, and I meet representatives of the sector on a number of forums regularly. Across all my engagement with the sector, I continue to make it clear that, although the fiscal context remains exceptionally challenging for the Scottish Government and the college sector, my expectation is that management and unions will continue to work together to make every effort to reach a fair and affordable settlement. We seemed to see progress towards that settlement a number of times in the past 18 months, only for that progress, regrettably, to stall.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As the minister will be aware, industrial action is taking place today in colleges across Scotland because of the on-going pay dispute, which impacts on many of my constituents, both staff and students. Does he agree that both sides need to work constructively for a solution in order for the sector to focus on delivering the high-quality education that its students expect? Can he advise what the Scottish Government can do to support that? Will he restate the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem in the different sections of further and higher education?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The member can take our intent on parity of esteem as a given.

Although I absolutely respect the right of trade unions to take industrial action, I remain concerned by the impact that that period of industrial action will have on our students, which is why I encourage both sides to come to a resolution. It is, of course, for the college unions and the employers, not the Scottish Government, to negotiate pay and terms and conditions. It should be recognised that agreement has been reached with Unite, the GMB and employers.

I will continue to engage with management and unions, as and when appropriate, in the hope that they can reach a fair and affordable settlement. To discover, as I did yesterday, that there are no plans for the two sides to get back around the table in the wake of the present action is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

Nursery-age Childcare Funding

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on nursery-age childcare funding provision. (S6O-03138)

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

In 2024-25, the Scottish Government will continue to invest around £1 billion to fund local authorities to provide 1,140 hours a year of high-quality funded early learning and childcare to all eligible children.

We are also investing an additional £16 million in-year to deliver our commitment to enable childcare workers delivering funded ELC in private and third sector services to be paid at least £12 per hour from 24 April. Alongside that, we will expand our childminder recruitment and retention pilots and progress work with the six early adopter communities in Clackmannanshire, Dundee, Fife, Glasgow, Inverclyde and Shetland to develop local systems of funded childcare for those families who need it most.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

During the Scottish National Party leadership race, the First Minister promised to tackle the issue of lower 1,140 hours funding for private, voluntary and independent nurseries compared with funding for council-run nurseries. Experienced staff are leaving to work for better pay elsewhere, threatening the flexible provision that private, voluntary and independent nurseries offer. Budgets are being set and fee rates decided right now. What has the Scottish Government done to close the gap in funding?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I start by

saying how much I value the work and efforts of our PVI sector in delivering funded childcare.

The average rate paid by local authorities to providers for delivering ELC has increased by 64.1 per cent since 2017. However, there is still variation across Scotland, and I have been clear that, where improvements can be made to the rate-setting process, I want such improvements to be made. I am committed to working with the sector on that, and will continue to look for opportunities to do so and to strengthen the current system.

In December, the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities published our joint review of the process for setting sustainable rates, which recommends actions to drive improvement. I am wholly positive that we will see exactly such improvement out of that process.

On top of that, we are working with the sector to provide further support for that £12 per hour commitment, and I will continue to work with stakeholders to consider whether wider actions could be taken to further strengthen and improve the rate-setting process.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of a proposal in Edinburgh to phase out funded childcare in private and independent nurseries for parents who live outside the city. That will have a massively detrimental impact on my constituents in Fife who commute to Edinburgh for work. Furthermore, removing such a choice goes against the Government’s commitment to getting it right for every child.

What discussions, if any, did the Scottish Government have with the City of Edinburgh Council about that proposal? Does the minister still believe that parental choice is key to delivering nursery-age childcare for every child, and that such childcare should be fully funded?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

It

would not be appropriate for me to intervene directly in the internal decision-making processes of an individual local authority in relation to the delivery of ELC. However, I expect any changes to service delivery in any local authority to be made in line with statutory duties and to take account of the Scottish Government and local government’s shared aims of ELC expansion.

Those shared aims are reflected in the statutory guidance, and our latest funding follows the child operating guidance, which was delivered jointly with COSLA. I encourage neighbouring councils to work together to ensure that publicly funded services meet the needs of families and prioritise children’s wellbeing, including those who need cross-boundary placements. I will continue to monitor the situation.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

P

arents in the South Scotland region have reached out to me because they are struggling with the lack of flexibility in pick-up and drop-off times at nursery. What specific Scottish Government support has been given to local authorities to facilitate genuinely flexible early years provision?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

We understand that the needs of parents, families and children in different areas across the country are very distinct. In our six early adopter areas, we are diving into what families need. We are working with families, children and providers to understand what is required in those local areas and to help us to build our future system of childcare. Flexibility is a key part of that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Schools (Foreign Languages)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it will encourage the uptake of foreign languages at primary and secondary schools. (S6O-03140)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The Scottish Government is committed to language learning in our schools, which is why, since 2013, we have provided local authorities and third sector partners with funding of more than £50 million to support and implement our one-plus-two languages approach in Scotland. A 2021 survey of local authorities confirmed that pupils across Scotland are now learning languages from primary 1 and are continuing their broad general education throughout—an important change since the policy was introduced 10 years ago.

We continue to support modern languages through the support that is provided to schools by Education Scotland, and through funding to the University of Strathclyde, which hosts Scotland’s national centre for languages and provides professional learning guidance and advice to schools.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We

know that experiences abroad can be of huge benefit to learning a foreign language. However, because of Brexit, many students are losing out on that opportunity because of the loss of the Erasmus programme. How will students be supported to study abroad in lieu of Erasmus?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The

member is correct to raise Brexit in that context. The Government remains committed to addressing one of the most damaging consequences of Brexit for schools, universities and colleges—the fact that United Kingdom students can no longer take part in the Erasmus+ programme. The Erasmus+ programme had a major impact on higher and further education in Scotland, with proportionately more students from Scotland taking part in Erasmus than from any other country in the UK, and proportionately more European Union students coming to Scotland on Erasmus than to anywhere else in the UK.

At school level, Erasmus+ was used primarily to support staff mobility and virtual exchanges between schools, as well as some school trips. In 2023-24, the Government is funding a test and learn programme to re-establish some of the opportunities that Erasmus+ provided, but which the UK Government’s Turing scheme does not.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

L

ast Wednesday was international mother language day, which raised awareness of the opportunity to learn foreign languages at school and also of the importance of preserving languages. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on work to revitalise Gaelic language education in primary and secondary schools?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The Government is taking a number of actions in relation to the Gaelic language, not least of which will be the introduction of a piece of proposed legislation later in the year to strengthen Gaelic provision across the country, including in relation to the teaching of Gaelic. I would be more than happy to write to the member on the details of that bill.

Flexible Workforce Development Fund

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the open letter sent to MSPs from over 120 colleges, businesses and trade unions, on 5 February, urgently asking for the reinstatement of the flexible workforce development fund for Scotland’s colleges, which has been removed from the draft budget for 2024-25. (S6O-03141)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As a result of decisions made by the United Kingdom Government, this is the most challenging budget to be delivered under devolution. Extremely hard decisions have had to be made to ensure that Scotland’s public finances remain on a sustainable trajectory. In the face of those unprecedented financial challenges, it was not possible to preserve the flexible workforce development fund offering. I am fully aware that colleges and the many businesses that have benefited from it are disappointed by the withdrawal of the funding, and I share that disappointment. I wish that it had been possible to avoid that happening. Our response to the open letter was issued on Monday 26 February.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for that answer, but it was complete nonsense. The fund was cut by this Scottish National Party Government, leading to students and businesses being let down and the skills gap widening. Does the minister accept that his Government’s decision to cut the flexible workforce development fund while receiving a 2.2 per cent real-terms increase in funding from the UK Government was a poor decision?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

What I am struck by is Rachael Hamilton raising this issue after passing up an opportunity to seek to restore the fund, if she had wanted to, by lodging an amendment to the budget as recently as this week. Instead of doing that, she joined her Conservative colleagues in simply attacking the draft budget, offering no costed alternatives to its content and trying to vote it down. Of course, had she succeeded in voting it down, colleges and their trade unions would now have a lot more to be concerned about than the loss of the flexible workforce development fund. That is why her raising the issue today rings so hollow.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio question time on education and skills. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench speakers to change over.

Eljamel and NHS Tayside Public Inquiry and Independent Clinical Review

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Neil Gray on Eljamel and the NHS Tayside public inquiry and independent clinical review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It has been one of my great privileges in my first few days as Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to have seen and heard about just a small fraction of the excellent work that is going on in our health services across Scotland. I know that we have incredibly dedicated doctors, nurses and care workers across our systems, and I am truly grateful to them every day.

All of us, whether for ourselves or through our families or friends, have interactions with the national health service. Therefore, there is nothing more important to me than ensuring that our health service is safe and effective and that all patients receive the high standard of care that we would all expect. However, should any concern be felt about the care or treatment that is provided in our health service, it is absolutely right that patients or their families know that there are clear channels to raise those concerns and that they can have confidence that their concerns will be investigated swiftly and effectively and that, where necessary, appropriate action will be taken.

In September, my predecessor, Michael Matheson, set out in a statement to the Parliament that we would establish a public inquiry into the actions of both Mr Eljamel and NHS Tayside, and that we would conduct an independent clinical review for the former patients of Mr Eljamel who want their cases to be reviewed.

In recent days, I have met—albeit briefly—a number of patients and patient representatives who have suffered terribly as a result of the actions of Mr Eljamel. I did so at the protest outside Parliament last week and at another meeting this morning. The experiences that those brave individuals shared with me are truly shocking, so I record my regret and sorrow that their search for answers has taken so long. They also have my heartfelt respect for their determination to get to the truth of what has happened.

That is why the aims of the inquiry are so important. It will seek to establish who knew what and when, and what factors contributed to the failures that were described in NHS Tayside’s “Due Diligence Review of Documentation Held Relating to Professor Eljamel”. In providing answers to patients who raised concerns about their poor experiences of care, the inquiry will make recommendations to ensure that the appropriate levels of governance and scrutiny are applied in the future, in order to prevent a similar circumstance from occurring in any other health board in Scotland.

Public inquiries are not undertaken lightly, but the commitment that Michael Matheson made, which I whole-heartedly agree with, reflects the importance of ensuring that, when repeated concerns and questions are raised, those who are accountable for acting on them do so, the effectiveness of their actions is scrutinised, and lessons are learned and necessary improvements are made.

In addition, work is under way to assess how the various recommendations from previous inquiries and reviews have been implemented in order to assure me—and, ultimately, the people of Scotland—that lessons have been learned. Interventions that are found to work to improve patient safety and increase the quality of care must be embedded in the system.

As many people will be aware, Mr Eljamel was employed by NHS Tayside from 1995 until 2014, and concerns about his practice were first raised at NHS Tayside in 2011. As a result of a complaint that was received at the end of 2012, two more complaints that were received in 2013 and two significant clinical event analyses, NHS Tayside commissioned the Royal College of Surgeons of England to review his practice on 20 June 2013. Following receipt of the Royal College of Surgeons of England’s final report, Mr Eljamel was suspended in December 2013. Most complaints were received after he had been suspended.

In total, nine reviews of his practice have taken place, including NHS Tayside’s “Due Diligence Review of Documentation Held Relating to Professor Eljamel”, which was published last August. That report laid bare the failings in NHS Tayside’s response to concerns about Mr Eljamel. It was clear from that review that those concerns were not acted on or followed up with the urgency and rigour that they deserved.

As Parliament is aware, in September my predecessor Michael Matheson announced that an independent clinical review was being commissioned alongside the public inquiry. A number of extensive conversations have taken place between officials and prospective review chairs in order to ensure that the most appropriate and qualified individuals were identified to take forward the vital investigatory processes.

Mr Eljamel’s former patients have the right to answers, and we, as a Government, and our public bodies must learn from their experiences to ensure that such things do not happen again.

From my discussions with former patients, including those whom I met outside Parliament last week, I understand the strength of their frustrations and their upset and, therefore, the importance of the investigations being progressed as quickly as possible. The people of Scotland must have confidence in our national health service and its systems, and they must have trust that complaints will be investigated. My plan is that the public inquiry and the independent clinical review will help to build back lost trust.

One of the first things that I did when I came into office three weeks ago was ask for an update on appointment of the chairs of the public inquiry and the independent clinical review. I know that colleagues and former patients also have a keen interest in the progress that has been made. Today, I can report that both chairs have now been appointed. The Hon Lord Robert Weir will chair the public inquiry. Lord Weir is a sitting judge who was appointed to the supreme courts in April 2020, having sat as a temporary judge of the High Court from 2017. I am confident that Lord Weir, as a serving judge with expertise in personal injuries, will bring rigour and transparency to the inquiry. I will meet Lord Weir and my officials this afternoon, when we will discuss the planned meeting between Lord Weir and the patients group that is to be held in the coming weeks, at which they will seek to endorse the terms of reference for the inquiry.

My officials have also progressed several essential inquiry establishment activities, including the processes to appoint the solicitor and secretary to the inquiry to support Lord Weir in developing a plan. That plan will set out the activities that are to be undertaken and a delivery timeframe—including for the establishment of an inquiry team—the processes and practices to be utilised, outline investigation plans and proposed dates for the publication of inquiry reports.

Moving on to the independent clinical review, I can announce today that, under the terms of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, I have appointed Professor Stephen Wigmore, regius chair of clinical surgery and head of the department of surgery at the University of Edinburgh, to chair the review process. He has extensive experience of leading similar clinical reviews, and I am confident that he will apply the same level of leadership and integrity to the independent clinical review. His unique skill set and experience will enable a thorough and independent review of clinical records for patients who wish to be included. Professor Wigmore is a transplant and hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeon. As such, and given the area of Mr Eljamel’s practice, he will be supported by a group of expert neurosurgeons.

The review will be different from the previous ones because it will offer an individualised approach for each former patient who wishes to take part. Professor Wigmore has been discussing with my officials the appropriate support that will be required to enable the reviews to take place in a timely but progressive manner.

The terms of reference for the review have been drafted by my officials and are with the chair for consideration. As my predecessor outlined, it is expected that engagement with former patients and patient advocates will take place prior to finalising the terms of reference.

It is anticipated that the independent clinical review will begin in April, when patients will be proactively contacted to advise them how to request a review of their clinical records. Given the potentially large number of former patients, it is expected that they will be identified and contacted in tranches in order to ensure that no one is missed. Once a more definitive timeline is available, the independent clinical review team will advise former patients by email or by a letter through the post. In the meantime, work is already under way to identify all the patients who have been impacted by Mr Eljamel’s practice.

It is the intention of the independent clinical review to offer the opportunity for review to all patients who have concerns about their treatment and care from Mr Eljamel while he worked in NHS Tayside. As my predecessor previously advised members, those clinical reviews will allow a person-centred and trauma-informed review of each patient’s clinical records. The reviews will also address patients’ individual needs and circumstances, and will aim to offer bespoke personalised answers such as an inquiry could not offer.

The independent clinical review will be separate from the public inquiry; but it is expected that the findings of the clinical review may form evidence that will be considered by that public inquiry in due course.

Finally, as the new health secretary, I assure not only Parliament but—more importantly—those who have suffered at the hands of Mr Eljamel, how seriously I take the public inquiry. We must get to the truth of what has happened in order that we can continue to rebuild trust with the public and ensure that vital learning is applied so that we can prevent similar events from occurring again. I will continue to update Parliament as the work progresses.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question and have not yet done so should press their request-to-speak buttons.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Neil Gray for advance sight of his statement regarding the very welcome appointments of the Hon Lord Robert Weir and Professor Stephen Wigmore. I also thank him for his very quick and effective engagement with me on this matter during his short time so far in post.

We have all heard—in my case, for 10 years—harrowing stories about the intense and permanent physical and psychological pain of Eljamel’s patients and of families being broken apart. We have heard heartrending accounts of victims trying to get to the truth, only to be knocked back at every turn.

During those 10 years, I have dealt with no fewer than seven health secretaries and, although I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of their sympathy for what patients have had to endure, there have been far too many instances of dither and delay, all of which have, understandably, served to heighten patients’ anxiety that there was some sort of cover-up.

In short, we should have been at the start of the public inquiry long before now. Although the work will now be within the remit of the judge, and, quite rightly, independent of Government, will the cabinet secretary provide a categorical assurance to Parliament that he will review the process by which the Scottish Government oversees the work of its health boards, and develop a foolproof process by which there is full transparency of the decisions that are made, both clinical and administrative, and full disclosure of who has been involved in those decisions?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I begin by thanking Liz Smith for her tenacity in the work that she has undertaken on behalf of her constituents over far too long a period. We can agree that we are in a situation in which people have had to wait far too long to get answers and to get to this point.

I am happy to consider what more can be done to review our processes, but I expect that part of the public inquiry’s evidence taking will be to ensure that such transparency and rigour are applied across all our public services, including the Government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and welcome him to the health and social care portfolio.

I welcome the announcement of the chairs of the public inquiry and the clinical review process into the Eljamel scandal and NHS Tayside. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the many campaigners, but in particular to Jules Rose and Pat Kelly. We would not be here today without their determination to see justice done.

It has taken almost six months for the chairs to be appointed but 10 years for the Scottish Government to agree to the review, and many of the victims of Dr Eljamel are getting older. In my view, their campaign strapline says it all: “They dither, we die.” On that basis, will the cabinet secretary pledge that the inquiry will get every resource that it needs and that the clinical review will properly proceed at pace? All the former patients need to be properly consulted, and not just to endorse the terms of reference, which should be finalised without delay.

I want to touch quickly on the clinical review of cases. The cabinet secretary will appreciate that the victims’ trust is in short supply. Can he therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that Jason Leitch, the national clinical director, will have no role in the review of cases or in the inquiry, given—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Jackie Baillie for her questions. I reiterate her tribute to Jules Rose and Pat Kelly, whom I had the fortune to meet last week outside Parliament and again this morning, when we discussed what I was going to announce to Parliament today. I pay tribute, as Jackie Baillie did, to their tenacity and the hard work that they have put in to get us to where we are today. She served them well in her comments.

On the resources of the public inquiry and the clinical review, yes, I give that undertaking. On the public inquiry’s terms of reference, there is a meeting to be established with the patients, their representatives and Lord Weir. It will be for that discussion to ensure that the terms of reference meet their expectations.

I have said in response to correspondence from Liz Smith that, although Jason Leitch heads the department and, as a director of it, receives briefings about the progress of the review and the independent inquiry, he does not have any day-to-day responsibility for their oversight.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I hold a bank contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Will the cabinet secretary give further detail on how the public inquiry and the independent clinical review will work in parallel and complement one another?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Although the two processes will be operationally independent, I hope that they will complement each other in providing answers to former patients, and providing the distinct answers that they require at different stages.

The public inquiry will focus on the actions of Mr Eljamel and NHS Tayside, while the independent clinical review will produce individual case reviews, which will be provided directly to the former patients or their families, and a report on the collective reviews and common themes. It is expected that the findings of the clinical review may form evidence that will be considered by the public inquiry in due course.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare my interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.

I welcome the public inquiry, and I welcome both chairs. Eljamel has brought the medical profession into disrepute. He is a disgrace.

Although there have been clear clinical failures, it is abundantly clear that NHS managers have significant questions to answer about their role in allowing Eljamel to continue to work despite mounting evidence, and about other decisions that they took.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that NHS managers should be regulated, as doctors and nurses are, by an independent body with the legal purpose of protecting, promoting and maintaining the health and safety of the public?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Sandesh Gulhane is right to point out the fact that clear failings have been underlined by the due diligence report into clinical failings—of that there is no doubt—and that there have also been failings of management. I expect the public inquiry to look into that in detail, and I expect recommendations to come through that to inform better practice. As he would expect, in order for us to rebuild people’s trust, I expect the Government to respect and implement any recommendations.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I remind members that I am still a nurse and that my experience was in the perioperative environment.

Will the cabinet secretary speak to the importance of ensuring that patients are involved in every step of the process, so that their voices and experiences are heard?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Colleagues from across parties have set out the importance of ensuring that patients are at the heart of the process. The very essence of a public inquiry is to put the public front and centre and to provide a platform for their experiences to be listened to and their voices heard. To that end, the terms of reference for the review and the inquiry will be developed in consultation with patients and their representatives, to ensure that the right focus and scrutiny are given to the right issues. Throughout that, the aim will be to identify the right lessons to be learned and areas in which patient safety and care improvements are required, and then to deliver.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

My constituent Pat Kelly’s experience of his own case note review, which he received in 2022, was utterly dreadful. Will the new independent clinical review process ensure that patients’ views and evidence are included, rather than simply review documentation in which patients have no faith?

My constituents and their fellow victims have almost no trust left in NHS Tayside. The culture of cover-up in the health board has denied them justice for years. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the new chief executive of NHS Tayside, to lay out to her that that leadership culture of cover-up and denial—of managing headlines instead of delivering honest transparency—must change?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I recognise Michael Marra’s work on behalf of his constituent Pat Kelly in bringing these issues to the chamber and to the Government. In the first instance, I recognise the lack of trust that I have heard about from the patients. I more than understand and appreciate that. That is why the clinical review and the public inquiry must proceed in a way that meets and services the needs of the patients, and it is why the consultation with them by Lord Weir and Professor Wigmore will be so important.

When it comes to recommendations for NHS Tayside, the public inquiry must take its course. In the interim, however, my expectation is that all health boards should take seriously the complaints and the concerns of the people who report them, and that we should all share the clear channels and routes by which people can raise concerns and complaints—through the independent ombudsman process, for example, as well as the whistleblower process that rests within health boards—to ensure that patients’ concerns can be addressed.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Given the pressures on the national health service with which we are all familiar, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that there will be adequate access to clinical advice and input to enable Professor Wigmore to undertake the independent clinical reviews, so that the process is deeper than simply examining historical records and can provide good clinical analysis for individuals who have been so wronged through their treatment by Professor Eljamel?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I recognise John Swinney’s long-standing interest and work in this area. Professor Wigmore will be supported by a group of expert neurosurgeons, given the area of Mr Eljamel’s practice. Once the number of eligible former patients is identified, Professor Wigmore will consider what level of support is required to facilitate timely reviews. That opportunity will need to be open to any former patient who wishes to take part. As such, I reassure Mr Swinney, and colleagues on all sides of the chamber, that we will not allow anyone to be turned away because of cost or resource.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Parliament and the Government have tested the patience of Mr Eljamel’s victims, but these appointments are serious, and I thank the cabinet secretary for that.

Time is short for many of those involved, and they have suffered very deeply for many years. What, practically, can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that both the inquiry and the review are carried out in good time?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Willie Rennie for his question and for his involvement in raising these issues over a long period of time. I well recognise the strength of feeling that he outlines and the need for the processes to operate in a timely way. I cannot give a confirmation on the length of time that the public inquiry will take—that is for the chair to determine independently with regard to how he chooses to proceed.

I know that the clinical reviews are due to begin in April, and I hope that that will provide some comfort to patients, who have waited too long for these processes to begin, that there is a momentum building and that the processes are beginning in order for them to get the answers to questions that they seek.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Can the cabinet secretary reassure former patients who arrange an individual clinical case review that they will be treated with the utmost dignity and respect under the review process?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Absolutely—I absolutely give that assurance. I do not believe that, in my conversations with Lord Weir shortly, and in any conversations that I have with Professor Wigmore, I will need to impress that upon them. I think that they will take that incredibly seriously. We must put the patients at the heart of the process—we must ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect, and that they get the answers that they so desperately crave.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

First, I offer apologies from Maggie Chapman, who was very keen to ask a question but who, due to a personal emergency, cannot be in the chamber this afternoon. I ask this question on her behalf. What work is on-going to ensure that, when all potential victims have been identified, they are kept up to date with the inquiries as they progress in order to ensure that they have all the answers that they deserve? How, in the meantime, can trust be rebuilt between the public and the health board?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

With regard to ensuring that trust is rebuilt, I set out in my statement the importance of that in the process. I am due to meet Lord Weir briefly this afternoon, and I will ensure that, in that discussion, I impress upon him not only the question about timescales that Willie Rennie raised, but the point that Gillian Mackay makes about ensuring that participants, and potential participants, are kept updated. I will ensure that that is also communicated to Professor Wigmore.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the Scottish Government ensure that all the records of all its meetings and engagements with Eljamel’s former patients, which go back a long time, will be made available to the public inquiry?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes—the Scottish Government will co-operate fully by ensuring that all documentation that we have available is passed on.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the inquiry, once it is in place, will ensure that lessons are learned and that robust safeguards are in place for patients?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As I indicated, the public inquiry will produce findings and recommendations. It will be for the Government to work with all parties and public bodies to ensure that the necessary improvements are made, including those relating to patient care and safety. We are all beholden to do so. I spoke in my statement about the need for services to maintain or regain trust. We must respect the process

and the recommendations in order to ensure that lessons are learned, and I absolutely intend to do just that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes this item of business.

Point of Order

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your advice on whether the Scottish Government has contacted you about holding an urgent statement this afternoon on the very worrying news coming out of Aberdeen. It is being reported that hundreds of people are set to be moved out of their homes because of the presence of potentially dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Aberdeen City Council says that there is RAAC in 500 homes in the Balnagask area, including 364 council properties.

I have pressed the Government for almost a year to get serious about dangerous concrete. We have helped to uncover its presence in schools, hospitals, universities, colleges, fire stations, police stations, courts and—yes—homes. Now, the news from Aberdeen will turn the lives of hundreds of people upside down.

I am sure that members across the chamber will want to join me in asking the Government questions this afternoon, if possible, about the timescale in which that will occur. Does “as soon as possible” mean immediately, days, weeks or months? Where will those people be rehomed temporarily or even permanently? Was the Scottish Government aware that that decision was about to be taken? What precisely was contained in the report that Aberdeen City Council was given a week ago that caused the decision to be taken? What has changed? What impact does that have on policy in the rest of Scotland?

The Scottish National Party Government has been too casual about the issue from the very start. I have uncovered a pattern of the Government not telling Parliament, ignoring it internally and cutting budgets. The news from Aberdeen today must force the Government to be open with Parliament and to come to Parliament this afternoon.

Have you been contacted by the Government about holding such an urgent statement this afternoon, Presiding Officer?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am not aware of either those reports or any approach in relation to a statement. You will be aware that the business for the week is agreed in the Parliamentary Bureau, and that business has been approved by Parliament. However, I am sure that your comments will have been noted.

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of

business is a debate on motion S6M-12331, in the name of Maree Todd, on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I note that we seem to be missing a committee convener. I hope that he will appear very shortly, because he is down as the third member to speak.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I thank everyone who has contributed to the consultation on the national care service, our co-design sessions, the annual forums and the many meetings that my officials and I have undertaken. We have heard from thousands of people and, overwhelmingly, the message is the same. We need to improve the social care and community health system across Scotland. We need long-term, widespread transformation to fix some of the ingrained issues in the system and ensure sustainability for the future.

The bill is our chance to effect the meaningful change that we all agree is needed. The national care service will provide greater transparency on the delivery of care, improve standards, support improvement in pay and conditions for workers and provide better support for unpaid carers.

I thank the seven parliamentary committees that have taken evidence and reported on the bill at stage 1. The committee scrutiny has been comprehensive and robust, and I welcome that.

I acknowledge that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has restated its intention to consider further details of the Scottish Government’s proposed changes to the bill at stage 2. I have already provided a great deal of information at stage 1, in the interests of being transparent and helpful, and I have committed to giving the lead committee what it requires during the stage 2 process, as requested in its letter of 7 November. I repeat that commitment today. Information will be provided as soon as possible.

The starting point for this work was the independent review of adult social care that was conducted by Derek Feeley. The review, which the Government commissioned in the summer of 2020, has been the guiding force behind the bill. It recommended reforming social care in Scotland and strengthening national accountability for social care support, and it outlined the limitations of our current delivery structures. Those limitations included a postcode lottery in relation to user experience, a lack of national oversight and co-ordination, and a lack of collaborative and strategic leadership. The review also said that we should take a human rights-based approach to social care. All of that has been confirmed through our engagement and our co-design work. We have heard repeatedly that the current social care and community healthcare system must change to drive up standards to a consistent level across the country.

Many campaigners have been waiting a long time for this, but some do not have a long time. I know from listening to them that the status quo is not an option and that we cannot delay change. I was very moved when I met an advocate for those with motor neurone disease recently. He told his story powerfully. He might have only a few months to live—too few to be spending time as a delayed discharge in an intensive care unit when he could be at home with his family. As a country, we should be good enough at planning, managing and delivering social care so that people such as him get exactly what they need when and where they need it.

Feeley highlighted a need to reconsider the way that we think about social care. Globally, social care support is seen as a burden or a drain on society. In a country with an ageing population and unprecedented pressure on our national health service, we cannot afford to view social care as a burden. It is an investment in our society. Good social care, wherever people live in Scotland and whatever their needs are, enables and empowers them to live independent lives.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

As a disabled person and a user of social care, and as someone who gets a lot of representations on the subject in my inbox, as many of us do, I have to say that those things have been said to people who use social care for a decade. For a decade, the Government has promised people who use social care that they would get greater access to it, that they would not have to pay for it and that there would be care workers to provide it when they needed it, but that is still not the case. Without any detail on that in the bill, how can the Government expect people to believe it this time?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I agree that people have waited a great deal of time for this change, but let me assure the member and the public that change is coming. Over the past 10 years and more, we have established that primary legislation and structural change are required. There are parties in the Parliament that still oppose that idea. I absolutely agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy on the need for change—I am unequivocal about that. We will deliver change, and I am keen to work with everyone across the Parliament to deliver the change that Scotland needs and deserves.

The bill as introduced sets out the principles of a national care service. It commits to a national care service charter, it sets out a national approach to managing complaints, it sets out provisions relating to data sharing and care records, it includes provision for breaks for carers and it includes provision to enact Anne’s law so that people in care homes have the right to be visited by their families. The engagement that we have carried out over the past year reconfirms that all those provisions are essential to improving social care in Scotland, and they remain central to the Government’s planned approach.

As I have set out in some detail to the committees and in the information that I have shared with all members this week, I intend to make three significant changes to the bill at stage 2, should the Parliament agree to its general principles today. They respond to evidence that was taken at stage 1, they follow engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the national health service, and they respond to on-going feedback from stakeholders.

These are the main changes that I want to make to the bill at stage 2: a national care service board will be established to oversee delivery across Scotland; we will not create new local care boards, as originally planned, but will, instead, reform existing integration authorities; and local authorities will retain responsibility for current functions and the delivery of social work and social care services, with no transfer of staff or assets.

That change in approach reflects the challenges of a new fiscal environment, in which it is more important than ever that we demonstrate value for money. The changes will substantively reduce the cost of the bill by removing the need to set up care boards and to transfer staff and assets. As I set out to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, that means that the cost of setting up the national care service will be up to £345 million over 10 years, whereas the proposals that were set out in the bill as introduced would have cost £1.6 billion over the same period. Collectively, we spend more than £5 billion a year on social care provision. The costs of change will be less than 1 per cent of current spend. We can make meaningful and lasting change for that relatively modest amount.

The national care service will bring change to children’s social care, social work and community health services. We have a real opportunity to improve the outcomes for children and families. An NCS will help to simplify the currently complex landscape for children and will lay the foundations to deliver much-needed improvements.

I will set out the difference that I believe the national care service board will make. The board will include, as a minimum, an independent chair, the Scottish Government, local government, the NHS and people who have lived experience of receiving and delivering community health and social care. The board will have an overview of the planning and delivery of community health and social care provision across Scotland. It will look at what is spent, what care is provided, who receives it and the outcomes for those people. The board will have a support and improvement framework that will drive improvement and innovation and will help local areas when monitoring indicates that standards and needs are not being met, and it will intervene if necessary.

The national board will give us a level of transparency that is not possible in the current system. It will let us understand where there are inconsistencies in people’s experiences across Scotland, build on good practice and tackle challenges. It will reflect the approach that we have taken to building the national care service by ensuring that we listen to the voices of the experts—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister is about to conclude.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The experts are the people who use community health and social care, as well as unpaid carers and the staff who provide the care.

I repeat that the status quo is not an option. We must make changes and invest in the future. The NCS is our vehicle to do that, and I believe that it can make a real difference to those who urgently need change.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Clare Haughey to speak on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I hold a bank staff nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee clerks for their support during the committee’s inquiry and preparation of our stage 1 report. The committee began its stage 1 scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill in October 2022, having issued a call for evidence during the summer. There was extensive engagement with the initial call for evidence, and I thank everyone who contributed. The committee has listened carefully to all the views that were expressed throughout that process, which were invaluable in informing the committee’s recommendations.

The committee took oral evidence on the bill at nine meetings between October and December 2022. We took further evidence on the bill in May 2023 and at three meetings in October 2023. I am equally grateful to everyone who contributed oral evidence to the committee during that time.

One strong message that we heard throughout our scrutiny concerned the case for reform of social care. Such reform is badly needed to address existing inconsistencies in access, to ensure consistent application of guidance and legislation, to address on-going challenges in the social care workforce, to improve commissioning and procurement of services, and, most importantly, to improve outcomes for people who receive social care and support.

The case for reform motivated Derek Feeley’s independent review of adult social care to recommend the creation of a national care service. In responding to the Feeley report, the Scottish Government has sought to give people with lived experience a stronger voice in shaping the proposals through a co-design process. A witness who gave oral evidence to the committee described that as “a bold approach”.

At the same time, the committee heard many stakeholders raise concerns about an on-going lack of clarity regarding the definition, the precise scope and key areas of focus of co-design or the anticipated outcomes of the co-design process. In a recommendation that was unanimously supported by its members, the committee, in its report, calls on the Scottish Government to

“set out an overarching plan that includes a clear definition of co-design, parameters and intended outcomes of the co-design work and a timetable for its completion.”

We also want the Scottish Government to

“recognise the critical role the Scottish Parliament has to play in undertaking”

on-going scrutiny of the bill’s implementation,

“including in relation to the outcomes of the co-design process.”

During its scrutiny, the committee heard widespread support for the principles that are set out in section 1 of the bill. At the same time, our report highlights several areas in which the majority of committee members believe that those principles could usefully be clarified and strengthened.

Although the committee acknowledges the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to fair work principles, the majority of the committee would like the bill to be strengthened to include a

“clear and comprehensive definition of ‘fair work’”

and provide clarity on how those principles will be consistently applied and enforced.

The committee’s report seeks clarification on the remit of the planned national social work agency. The Scottish Government has said that the agency’s responsibilities will include monitoring and improving service quality, overseeing and supporting education, improving and scaling up good practice, workforce planning, training and development, and work on terms and conditions, including pay. The committee is keen to understand why the agency’s proposed remit is limited to the social work profession when there is an equally pressing need to address such issues for the wider social care workforce.

Furthermore, if the agency is to be set up as a Scottish Government department, how will it be ensured that it has the necessary operational independence to fulfil its role effectively?

I look forward to receiving the minister’s considered response to those concerns.

For a long time, we have been talking about the creation of a single electronic health and social care information record. Completing that work will be fundamental to the success of the proposed national care service and should be treated as an absolute priority. The committee’s report also highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluation. Without that, how can we judge whether a national care service has successfully achieved its objectives?

The committee has unanimously called for appropriate provision to be made in the bill for effective monitoring and evaluation of the proposed national care service. I acknowledge that the committee has been unable to reach a consensus position in many areas, but I am pleased to note that our recommendations on the parts of the bill on creating a right to breaks for carers and on implementing Anne’s law were unanimously supported. I hope that those important measures can be implemented with all due care and speed.

The Scottish Government’s overall approach to the legislation has shifted significantly since the bill was introduced in June 2022.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am glad that Clare Haughey mentioned Anne’s law, and I welcome the report’s recommendations. I note that the committee agreed that Anne’s law should be fully implemented as soon as possible to ensure a human rights-based approach to care. Did it consider different options for its implementation, other than in the bill that was before the committee? Across the chamber, there is frustration in that, although we all agree on the need for Anne’s law, it perhaps does not need to be part of this bill. It could be implemented in other ways.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The committee considered the bill in its entirety, including all the different sections, one of which concerns Anne’s law.

The consensus agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on shared legal accountability means that a number of the bill’s key aspects will need to change. Accountability for social care will no longer be transferred from local authorities to Scottish ministers, and integration joint boards will no longer be replaced by local care boards. Instead, a national care service board is proposed, and local government will now retain social care functions, staff and assets.

Although many people welcome that shift in approach, we need to acknowledge that others have been left feeling disappointed that it fails to reflect the core aspirations of the Feeley review. There will be a job to do to rebuild trust with those people.

Our committee has noted the Scottish Government’s intention to bring about changes to the bill through amendments at stage 2. A majority of the committee expressed a willingness to recommend that the general principles of the bill as introduced should be approved at stage 1. However, we have made that majority recommendation on the understanding that the Scottish Government is prepared to give the committee sufficient time to take further oral and written evidence on the details of those amendments prior to commencing the formal process of considering and disposing of amendments at stage 2.

I acknowledge the interim response that was received from the minister yesterday, and I am grateful to her for providing the committee with a summary target operating model for the proposed national care service. The minister has also given a commitment that she will formalise the extensive input that has so far been received from a wide range of stakeholders in a legislative advisory group that will guide the on-going development of the bill.

A majority of the committee specifically called for the full text of the Scottish Government’s stage 2 amendments, a marked-up version of the bill as introduced that incorporates those amendments in a highlighted format, and an updated policy memorandum and explanatory notes to be published no later than 29 March. I am particularly encouraged by the minister’s commitment, in her interim response, to accept that recommendation and

“to facilitate what the Committee requires, and to do this as quickly as possible.”

I look forward to listening to all the contributions to this afternoon’s debate. I acknowledge that, ultimately, it was not possible for the committee to reach a consensus position on the general principles of the bill. I recognise the strongly held positions of all members on the committee and across the chamber. However, if, later today, the Parliament agrees to approve the general principles of the bill at stage 1, as the majority of the committee recommended, I hope that all members, whatever view they express today, will continue to engage constructively with a reinforced scrutiny process at stage 2.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.