Scottish Parliament, 5 November 2025

369 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19555, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Thursday 6 November 2025—

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing

followed by Ministerial Statement: The Draft Climate Change Plan 2025—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Portfolio Question Time

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to determine whether there could be any unintended consequences. (S6O-05090)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We have undertaken the full suite of assessments that were required for introduction of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. The rationale for the bill is set out in the accompanying policy memorandum. Ahead of its introduction, the Scottish Government carried out three public consultations on the proposals in the bill, and the responses to those consultations informed its development. In addition, officials continue to engage closely with internal and external stakeholders, including non-government organisations, land managers and farmers, to identify and address any potential unintended consequences.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The bill could seriously impact the deer management sector, allowing NatureScot’s overreach and conflicting powers to be enhanced while eroding the trust of those who work in the sector. Meanwhile, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and NFU Scotland have expressed significant concerns about unintended impacts of the bill’s mandatory training provisions, which come without any grandfather rights on lowland deer management. That could create barriers to entry and reduce the pool of active deer stalkers, despite a lack of evidence indicating that it is required.

At a time when the Government is legislating for more deer to be culled across Scotland, why is it simultaneously ignoring such concerns?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We are not ignoring concerns at all. I stated in my first answer that we are actively engaging with deer managers right across the country—lowland and upland.

On the ability to shoot deer effectively, I do not think that it is too much to ask to ensure that deer stalkers and those who control deer have the requisite training to ensure that that is done safely and appropriately.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Environmental groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have highlighted the high financial costs for removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain. As things stand, NatureScot and other environmental restoration groups must use already stretched budgets to mitigate the environmental damage that is caused by the negligence of private companies. There is concern that, if the bill does not address that issue, it might unintentionally further embolden big polluters. Does the Scottish Government support the principle that the polluters must pay for the environmental damage that their industry causes?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely understand that there are some concerns about the seeding of conifers, but all those things will be stretched out and discussed as the bill progresses.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting path networks established under land reform legislation for outdoor recreation. (S6O-05091)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Our right of responsible non-motorised access to land is world leading in extent, scope and clarity. Access authorities, which are our local and national park authorities, have a duty under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to uphold access rights and to draw up a plan for a system of paths—a core path network—that is sufficient to give local users and visitors reasonable access throughout their areas. As that is a local authority responsibility, the Scottish Government supports the duty primarily through the provision of the annual block grant to local authorities.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The cabinet secretary will recognise that the path network plays an important part in our recreational programme for walkers across Scotland. However, there is growing concern about the maintenance of the path network. We spend almost £188 million a year on active travel infrastructure, but less than 1 per cent of that is allocated to our national path network. Will she engage with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to explore how a greater allocation of the active travel budget could be allocated to our national path network?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am more than happy to agree to engage with colleagues on that point. Some of the funding issues for paths have been related to the fact that we have a number of different funds for a number of different areas. It makes sense for us to utilise that funding in the best possible way and where it will have the best impact.

Our rights of access are world leading and we should be proud of that, but maintenance of our core path networks is critical. I am more than happy to follow the point up with colleagues and write to Michael Matheson with a response.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response to Michael Matheson and I welcome the increased active travel investment, which was a key achievement of the Scottish Greens during our time in government. However, does the cabinet secretary recognise that that funding is not reaching recreational paths in the countryside, which are under increasing pressure? Will she therefore ensure that the new rural support plan will provide funding for outdoor access, as is now the case in Wales and used to be the case in Scotland until 2022?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank Ariane Burgess for raising that point, which reiterates how important the issue is. Funding for access was devolved to local government in the concordat that was reached in 2008, so it remains the responsibility of local authorities. Notwithstanding that, however, given some of the other funding streams that we have talked about, I want to ensure that that funding gets to where it needs to go and that we help to maintain those networks. I am more than happy to follow up with Ariane Burgess on how we go about that.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government, further to its consultation on proposals to introduce new licensing regulations covering a range of animal-related activities, what discussions it has had with Police Scotland and Trading Standards Scotland. (S6O-05092)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Officials from the Scottish Government’s animal welfare team meet trading standards officers as part of their regular engagement with local authorities, which are responsible for the enforcement of animal licensing legislation. There have been no discussions about licensing with Police Scotland since the consultation in 2023.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister will be aware that I hosted a parliamentary round-table meeting last week to discuss the regulation of pet services, which was attended by Trading Standards Scotland, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Police Scotland and members of the Scottish Parliament. The discussion recognised the challenges with enforcement of any potential new regulatory rules and the fact that, when complaints or concerns are raised about pet groomers, pet boarders or dog walkers, the lack of regulation covering those businesses prohibits the police, trading standards officials or Scottish SCPA officers from being able to act.

Will the minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on the matter, given that the consultation analysis demonstrated overwhelming support from the public for regulation of pet services? Would he encourage the next Government, after the election, to introduce legislation to improve safeguards for pets?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Although the consultation demonstrated support for licensing, concerns were also expressed about the proportionality and cost of statutory licensing and about the capacity of local authorities to absorb and meaningfully enforce additional licensing requirements when budgets are already stretched. We are therefore assessing whether less onerous and more proportionate approaches, such as registration schemes linked to codes of conduct, could deliver similar outcomes to licensing. In the meantime, our immediate focus is to deliver on the proposal to regulate canine fertility businesses, due to the significant animal welfare concerns that are associated with that sector.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to deal with and improve land use issues, in particular dereliction and abandonment, in the urban setting. (S6O-05093)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government has put in place an enabling policy framework, including national planning framework 4, which actively encourages the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. We back that up with targeted funding to tackle the challenges of long-term vacant and derelict land. In 2025-26, the vacant and derelict land fund allocated £7.6 million to the five local authorities with the greatest amount of long-term vacant and derelict land. So far, the vacant and derelict land investment programme has invested in 33 projects, bringing just over 112 hectares of land back into use.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I have tried over many years to coax and cajole land and building owners to do something about the abandoned assets that they own in our towns, and have asked them to either clean and tidy them up, repurpose them or even sell them. Mostly, they ignore those pleas, since the councils usually act only if a property becomes a danger to the public. Abandoned land and derelict buildings can be the norm in many towns in Scotland.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it may be time for a different approach to those issues, with a move away from legislation and the serving of notices towards the promotion of a more co-operative approach? That would bring owners, retailers, the community and local councils together to bring about positive change in order to steadily improve the environment in the urban landscape in particular, in which we all share an interest.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I welcome the points that Willie Coffey makes, because I absolutely appreciate just how frustrating the situation is, and what a blight it can be, for communities. I am happy to hear and open to considering any new approaches that he might be willing to suggest. Those matters straddle a few different portfolios, so I will be keen to have those discussions with colleagues and raise the issues with them.

It is also important, however, to point out some of the other pieces of work that are under way that I think could help with some of the issues that Willie Coffey has outlined. We have had the consultation on community right to buy, which closed at the start of October, and there could well be relevant impacts from that, given the community right to buy that exists for abandoned, detrimental or neglected land. A consultation is also under way on compulsory sales orders, which, again, could help with some of those issues.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government’s Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which we are currently considering at stage 3, excludes urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on large land holdings. There is no mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management or urban land sales.

My colleague Paul Sweeney MSP has highlighted that, in Glasgow, 53 per cent of the population live within 500m of derelict land. The Scottish Government has long stated that work is under way, including the current review of the community right to buy. However, can the cabinet secretary tell us what steps the Government will take to deal with the matter and when we can expect that work to happen?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Rhoda Grant has raised some important points, as Paul Sweeney did when he spoke on some of the amendments that we discussed in our stage 3 consideration of the bill. The approach that we are taking through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is focused on rural land, is based on the recommendations in the Scottish Land Commission’s report as to where the issues are more pressing. However, that does not mean that we forget about urban areas and the pressures that exist there.

I have outlined some of the work—Rhoda Grant touched on it, too—such as the consultation on and review of community right to buy. I also touched on the consultation in relation to compulsory sales orders and compulsory purchase orders. The consultation has just closed, and it is important that we analyse the results to see what amendments could be needed to the various community rights to buy to ensure that those powers are easy for communities to use to tackle some of the issues that are right on their doorsteps.

I look forward to engaging further with Rhoda Grant as that work develops but, as I said, the consultation has only recently closed, so we need to examine the outcome of that first.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of the UK-wide fishing and coastal growth fund on opportunities for innovation that maximise the value created by Scotland’s seafood industry. (S6O-05094)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The allocation of just 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland is an insult to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities. It is unacceptable and must be reconsidered. Scotland accounts for more than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom’s fishing capacity and seafood exports, and Scottish vessels land more than 75 per cent of UK quota species. We made it clear to the UK Government that Scotland’s allocation should be at least 46 per cent, reflecting our share of the UK’s European Union fisheries funding. The unfair allocation severely restricts our ability to support critical innovation as our industry faces mounting pressures, and I strongly urge the UK Government to reconsider.

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

The insulting offer of just £28 million of the £360 million is a hammer blow for our fishing sector.

Seafood Scotland is driving the development of a Scottish ocean cluster, with Scotland joining the vanguard of countries that are researching how to extract more value from fish byproducts. In the face of the legacy of Brexit and a woeful UK Government funding offer, does the cabinet secretary agree that initiatives such as the cluster could serve as a catalyst for innovation, developing important new market opportunities and ensuring that the economic benefits that are generated flow directly back into the seafood sector?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I could not agree more with the points that Audrey Nicoll makes. I recognise the incredible work that Seafood Scotland does, as it is always looking to do more and is constantly innovating. However, we might think about how much more it could do were we to get the full opportunities that should be coming to us through the fishing and coastal growth fund, rather than being left with the share that we have.

I look forward to meeting Audrey Nicoll and Seafood Scotland to hear more about the ocean cluster project, because it is exciting. I am looking forward to those discussions, but I reiterate that the poor allocation to Scotland from the UK fishing and coastal growth fund really restricts the Scottish Government’s ability to support the seafood industry and to take more of those innovative steps.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the Scottish fishing industry. (S6O-05095)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government is committed to building a thriving, sustainable fishing industry, recognising its importance to Scotland’s economy. The marine fund Scotland provided £14 million this year to marine interests, including fishing. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to allocate Scotland only 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund is unacceptable, and we will work to have the decision revisited. We negotiate with our fishing neighbours to manage shared stocks and promote the best interests of our industry. Our ambitious programme to modernise regulation, introduce our future catching policy, and improve inshore fisheries management underpins the sustainability of the industry.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I note that the cabinet secretary does a lot of work, particularly in my constituency, and is praised for her collaborative work with the Scottish fishing sector.

Communities across the coast rely on a fairly funded Scottish fishing industry, but, given the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland less than 8 per cent of the post-European Union fishing fund, despite our sector being the largest in the UK, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is only with the full powers of independence that Scotland’s fishing industry can be properly prioritised?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I could not agree more with Karen Adam. When we compare Scotland with other European countries, there is a stark contrast. For example, Denmark has a smaller marine area and a smaller marine sector and it receives £25 million annually, compared with the updated but woeful allocation that we are receiving from the UK Government. That is why I will always argue that the fishing industry’s best interests and Scotland’s interests more widely will be best represented when we are an independent country.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I certainly do not agree that independence would help the Scottish fishing sector in the slightest, but I agree that the coastal grant fund simply was not enough. More importantly, there is far more to talk about in our wonderful Scottish fishing industry than I can ask about. Traditionally, every December, there has been a debate on fishing. I have been calling for that debate for a while. Will the cabinet secretary give me the assurance that, this December, we will finally have a big debate about the fishing industry on Government time?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Earlier this year, I believe that I committed to Tim Eagle that we would have a debate. I hope that he got the response to his parliamentary question, which also set out that we would be holding that debate. Of course, confirmation of that is subject to a Parliamentary Bureau decision, but I have committed to bringing forward the debate, and it will happen.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Fife fishing industry is deeply concerned that livelihoods will be disrupted by the offshore wind farms that are being built in the Forth without any compensation. Inch Cape, unlike the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm, is refusing to provide compensation for the mobile gear—the prawn boats—even though the cables are running through those fishing grounds, whereas the static gear is being compensated for. Will the cabinet secretary have a discussion with her colleagues to put together—at last—a compensation scheme for all the fishing industry, rather than just the statics?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Willie Rennie raises an important point that is, of course, impacting heavily on the industries in his constituency. I am more than happy to follow up with him and to have conversations with my colleagues to see what can be done in that regard. I understand that issues of compensation are currently private matters, but I appreciate the difficulties that he raises.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it monitors the change of use of agricultural land classified as grade 3 or above, including for infrastructure projects. (S6O-05096)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Scotland’s fourth land use strategy is due to be published by March 2026. Throughout its development, we will work with stakeholders regarding the multiple demands that are placed on our land and the fine balances that must be found as we move forward. The national planning framework 4 soils policy has safeguards in place for our best farm land and supports only in limited circumstances new development proposals on prime agricultural land or locally important agricultural land that is of lesser quality. The Scottish Government’s food security unit also seeks to annually review available information about the use of land with a capability for agricultural grades 1 to 3.2 and to improve the data.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In recent years, a number of infrastructure projects, from energy transmission and battery storage to housing, have been proposed or developed on agricultural land. Although individual projects may have a limited impact and some, such as solar farms, may be reversible in the long term, does the minister share my concern that, if the Scotland-wide cumulative effect of such projects is not monitored, localised planning decisions could undermine our long-term food security?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Maurice Golden makes a valid point, but the national planning framework 4 seeks to strike a balance between ensuring that land is protected and achieving other objectives relating to land use. The potential impacts on communities and nature, including prime agricultural land, are important considerations in the decision-making process, and all applications are subject to site-specific assessments.

I hope that the chamber has some confidence that we have the provisions in place to help protect the land.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I apologise for being a wee bit late at the start.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire. (S6O-05097)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We are committed to supporting new farmers in South Lanarkshire. The Farm Advisory Service provides peer-to-peer groups, mentoring and advice across a range of topics that are relevant to new entrants. They were one of the priority groups in the future farming investment scheme, and they can access national reserve payments. Wider national support is available through the farming opportunities for new entrants programme, the Scottish land matching service, the land-based pre-apprenticeship programme and the next generation practical training fund.

Unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Scotland remains committed to direct support and additional voluntary coupled support. Finally, I note that South Lanarkshire is not a crofting county, so there are no crofters there.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Approximately 37 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 16 and 24 are economically inactive. A number of rural and semi-rural professions have historically been more prevalent than others in the public imagination, including forestry, farming, land management and agricultural engineering—the list is endless. However, those professions are associated with the highly marketable and transferable skills that we presently lack in this country. Does the minister agree that expanding the current offering of apprenticeships in the agricultural sector would help to preserve traditional farming practices and benefit the environment, while simultaneously bolstering the productive workforce to the benefit of not just the rural communities but, essentially, everyone?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Before the minister responds, I remind him that we are dealing with supporting new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Indeed, Presiding Officer.

As someone who came from a town and spent a 30-year career in the agriculture sector, I absolutely take on board Davy Russell’s points.

There are a number of ways in which people in South Lanarkshire can get involved in agriculture. The Scottish Government supports entry through the land-based pre-apprenticeship programme and the next generation practical training fund, which ensure that young people gain skills, experience and a route into agricultural careers. Further, organisations such as Ringlink Scotland and Lantra Scotland can help in that regard. There are any number of ways for people to get involved in farming in Scotland.

As part of our programme for government, we announced that we will ask all public authority landholders to look at their holdings to see whether there are opportunities for them to enable new entrants to get into farming.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Jamie Halcro Johnston has a supplementary question. Again, I point out that we are dealing with the principal question, which is on supporting new farmers and crofters in South Lanarkshire.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Of course, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I declare an interest as a partner in a farming business.

Yesterday, in response to my concerns about how applications to the future farming investment scheme—including those from new entrants in South Lanarkshire—were decided, the minister did not answer my question about whether artificial intelligence had been used in determining who did and who did not get the grant. Therefore, I ask again: was AI used when deciding on FFIS applications?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in a brief supplementary question from Douglas Ross, again with the same caveat.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Fortunately, Presiding Officer, I spoke to a farmer from Lanarkshire last night, and she echoed many of the same concerns that I have heard from farmers across the Highlands and Islands. She was an applicant for the FFIS. She is a young farmer and a new entrant. She is a tenant on a small farm and was looking for only £3,000. Like those of many people, her application was unsuccessful. If AI was not used—that farmer thought that it had been used, and unsuccessfully—why has the scheme rejected so many people? Why were so many ineligible? Does the minister accept that people are suggesting, as that farmer from Lanarkshire did last night, that it feels as though it would have been as well selling raffle tickets for the fund rather than asking people to expend the extreme effort and time that was needed to make complex submissions that were ultimately unsuccessful?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely take on board Douglas Ross’s point. There are a number of disappointed people in the country—I made that point yesterday when I answered questions.

I reiterate that AI was not used. One of the dangers of social media is that a mistruth can go around the world twice before the truth has got its laces tied. There was no AI used—let us be absolutely clear about that.

The number of people who have not been successful is a reflection of the number of people who applied. It has been a very successful scheme. We got £21 million out to farmers as soon as we possibly could, and we prioritised certain groups. It is a successful scheme, but it shows that, when we introduce other schemes, we have more targeted work to do to make sure that we get funding to as many people as possible.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to change positions.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent poll that states that a majority of people in Scotland think the NHS is worse now than it was a decade ago. (S6O-05098)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There is no doubt that, as is the case in other countries, our health and social care services continue to face challenges, not least post Covid. However, with record funding and a focus on reform and renewal, we are empowering our NHS to deliver high-quality care to people across this country. We are investing a record £21.7 billion this year, targeting areas with the longest waits, tackling backlogs and ensuring that patients get the care that they need faster.

Our plans are delivering results. Last year, for example, the NHS performed a record number of hip and knee operations, and new figures show that the number of people on NHS waiting lists has fallen.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In his statement to Parliament on urgent care in the north of Skye, Neil Gray sought to assure local people that he would seek continued improvement. However, a freedom of information response obtained by SOS NHS campaigners showed that there were no advanced nurse practitioners on duty at Portree community hospital on 53 of the 84 nights between 1 July and 22 September 2025. That includes 6 August, when thousands of people attended the Skye highland games in Portree.

NHS staff are being left to work under extreme pressure to deliver on ministerial promises that ministers are not providing them with the resources to deliver on. Is it any wonder that, when communities such as those in the north of Skye get broken promise after broken promise from the Scottish Government, confidence in the future of our NHS is so low?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As I set out in my proactive statement to Parliament, the situation in Skye is improving because there has been increased workforce development and support for increased employment in Portree hospital to ensure that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s review can be honoured. I was able to meet local residents to provide reassurances on the commitment from NHS Highland of continued improvement locally.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members have a number of supplementary questions, and I will try to take all of them.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

One group of my constituents who are undoubtedly seeing a worse performance from the NHS than 10 years ago are those who are seeking gender healthcare from Sandyford, which serves not only NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde but seven other health board areas. Public Health Scotland data that was published last week shows that some 4,000 people are on the waiting list, with fewer than 50 first appointments a year. Can the cabinet secretary give my constituents any reassurance that some dramatic change is on its way, to ensure that that woeful performance turns around?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I acknowledge Mr Harvie’s point and the consistency with which he has raised it, including in our regular one-to-one discussions, for which I am very grateful.

I also recognise the Public Health Scotland figures that he has quoted with regard to the waiting times at the Sandyford and wider services, which are undoubtedly a challenge for us. I, too, have constituents who are in a similar situation, so I recognise the pressure that that puts on them and on staff. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is investing in areas to explore how we can alleviate those pressures on waiting times.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In 2024, there were 50,000 private hospital admissions in Scotland. That was a record high. In the first quarter of 2025, there was another record high. The figure has gone up by 42 per cent in the past five years. The British Medical Association’s survey was clear that the majority of people are choosing that option because the NHS waiting lists are just so long. Is the cabinet secretary not concerned that his Government is privatising the NHS by stealth?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No, absolutely not. I agreed with much of what Willie Rennie had to say until that final part. The basic principles that this Government is taking to reform and renewal work in the health service are based on ensuring that our health service continues to be free at the point of use and publicly owned. Of course, I am concerned by the fact that people are choosing to go through private healthcare. I want to give people the assurance that activity levels are up—and up substantially—because of the investment that we have made and the incredible dedication of staff, and that waiting times are falling. Progress has been made and the plan is working.

The figures for private healthcare in Scotland stand in stark contrast to the usage of private healthcare elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is because we want to protect and enhance NHS capacity in Scotland.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The survey highlights some mismanagement under the Scottish National Party Administration, which is no surprise to any of us. I have a constituent who received a double mastectomy in 2017 and is still awaiting reconstructive surgery in 2025. That is eight years of waiting, with one excuse after another and the Government resetting the clock on several occasions during the process. Does the minister agree that the creative accounting that has been applied to waiting lists is thoroughly letting my constituents down?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That is not what is happening. I want not just to sympathise and empathise, but to make sure that we provide the NHS capacity to allow the member’s constituent to be seen as quickly as possible. I have met other members—notably Dr Gulhane—with constituents who face the same issue. There is a challenge, because some of the theatres that are being used for reconstructive surgery are also being used for the first part of the treatment for people with cancer, ensuring that it gets done first. However, I am cognisant that reconstructive surgery for women with breast cancer is also part of their treatment journey and must be afforded timeously. That is why I am asking boards to consider all that they can do to ensure that it is done as fast as possible.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members that I am a practising nurse in the NHS.

The poll to which Mr Halcro Johnston referred also shows that 88 per cent of people believe that healthcare should be free. The Tories and Labour have been all too happy to carve out the NHS in England to private companies. Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that this SNP Government will always protect the founding principles of the NHS, which are that it is publicly owned and free at the point of need—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary—

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

—and will he ensure that it remains well funded and prepared to meet the requirements of all who use it?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Apologies, Ms Haughey. I thought that you had finished.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree with Clare Haughey. Our position could not be clearer: the founding principles of our national health service—that it is publicly owned, publicly operated and free at the point of need—are sacrosanct. That is why our backing of our NHS with record funding—I note that Labour and the Conservatives refused to support that record funding investment for our NHS during the budget vote—comes with a focus on reform. Such reform empowers our NHS to deliver high-quality care to people across the country, and it includes the £25.5 million of additional funding that was announced this week to allow boards to deliver more appointments and procedures.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reported concerns regarding patient safety at NHS Grampian arising from faulty sterilising equipment, whether an independent investigation into the procurement practices will be held. (S6O-05099)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I expect that a comprehensive service review of NHS Grampian’s central decontamination service will be carried out. That review will examine the decontamination process and the supporting infrastructure—including the plant, machinery and engineering services—that underpins safe and effective operations.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My whistleblowing constituent Jason Donnelly had his company’s contract with NHS Grampian cancelled after he raised concerns about patient safety. The First Minister is on record, on two separate occasions, calling for an independent investigation into those matters on the basis of evidence that was provided following freedom of information requests. It is clear that there has been maladministration on the part of NHS Grampian. How will the Scottish Government provide redress, in accordance with the Scottish public finance manual, for my constituent’s company for the unjustified wrong that was done to it?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Murdo Fraser for his question and for the correspondence on behalf of his constituent. I have corresponded with both him and the First Minister on the matter in a constituency capacity.

Mr Fraser refers to the situation relating to events in 2018, which involved a different service—endoscopy decontamination—and not to the situation that NHS Grampian is currently facing, which is to do with decontamination elsewhere. At my insistence, officials have met Mr Donnelly in order to explore whether anything further can be done to support him in his position. The advice that I have provided to Mr Fraser, on his behalf, still stands.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Karen Adam has a supplementary question, which should be related to the principal question, please.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that the Scottish Government is committed to putting patient safety at the heart of our NHS service delivery? What conversations has he had with NHS Grampian about its recovery?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask the cabinet secretary to focus his response on the topic of the question that was placed in the Business Bulletin .

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The recovery of NHS Grampian’s services has been hindered by the situation with decontamination services, and patient safety remains our top priority in regard to both.

I met the chair and chief executive of NHS Grampian in October to discuss the work that the health board is doing to explore and develop a new improvement plan, so that people receive the right care at the right time. The Scottish Government has also established an assurance board to support NHS Grampian and to provide assurance that an appropriate plan is developed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 3 is from Ash Regan, who joins us remotely.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the provision of mental health support for vulnerable women and girls with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related conditions, including where this is the result of commercial sexual exploitation in prostitution. (S6O-05100)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that vulnerable women and girls face with complex PTSD and trauma-related conditions, including those that are a result of commercial sexual exploitation. We have funded CSE Aware to provide training and awareness sessions to the wider public and the third sector, including across health services, to ensure that professionals across all settings have the skills and confidence to enable them to respond in the best way. We are committed to ensuring timely access to high-quality mental health services and are working closely with national health service boards and local authorities to expand trauma-informed psychological support for women and girls who are affected by trauma and exploitation.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

Evidence shows that women who are exploited through prostitution experience extraordinarily high rates of complex PTSD, and the trauma experienced is comparable to that suffered by state torture survivors and combat veterans. Symptoms include emotional dysregulation, identity disruption and lasting relational difficulties.

Although services such as the Anchor service in Glasgow and the Rivers centre in Edinburgh provide excellent care, specialist complex PTSD assessment and recovery support services remain quite scarce across Scotland. Will the Scottish Government commit to investing in long-term, trauma-informed recovery programmes, specialist complex PTSD diagnosis and practitioner training? Will it commit to recognising such exploitation as gender-based violence that impacts those women and girls deeply, and to ensuring that they get the support and sustained interventions that they need?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Ash Regan for raising those matters in her substantive and supplementary questions. As she will be aware, there has been significant investment in our mental health services and, through our national trauma transformation programme, there has been significant and sustained investment with partners across the public sector to support a trauma-informed approach.

Nonetheless, the matters that Ms Regan raises are extremely serious. I want to assure myself that, collectively—both in the Government and with our partners in local government—we are doing everything that we possibly can to provide support. I therefore undertake to explore the matter in more detail. I would be happy to engage with the member directly if she would find that useful. I will direct my officials to provide me with further briefing on the matter, and I will be happy to write to the member as a means of following up.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide financial scrutiny over NHS Grampian. (S6O-05101)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

NHS Grampian has been escalated to stage 4 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework, which allows it to receive support from the Scottish Government that is commensurate with its challenges.

As a result of that escalation, the Scottish Government has set up an NHS Grampian assurance board, which frequently challenges NHS Grampian’s financial management and position. We have also provided funding for an interim director of improvement and a diagnostic report on NHS Grampian’s financial challenges, and we meet its representatives weekly to enable us to monitor progress against financial targets.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yesterday’s damning Audit Scotland report warned that contending with a £68 million overspend in 2025-26 will require NHS Grampian to make big changes to its health and social care provision. The full implications of the failures of the Scottish National Party Government and NHS Grampian to manage the finances remain unclear—including whether there will be further delays to the Aberdeen and north centre for haematology, oncology and radiotherapy, which is known as the ANCHOR, and the promised national treatment centre. I have a straight question for the cabinet secretary: will the financial troubles delay the ANCHOR further, and when will we get the national treatment centre that we were promised?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. Progress continues to be made on the delivery of the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR, and I very much look forward to the additional capacity that that will bring.

On the national treatment centre programme, Liam Kerr will be aware of the capital position that the Government faces on the health portfolio in particular. There is currently a pause, other than in areas that are currently in development or set out under ministerial priority. However, we await the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget statement later this month, and I remain hopeful that, through its provisions, there might be increased capital investment in our economy that would allow us to take forward those projects much more quickly.

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

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the significant financial challenges that it faces. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need, when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary further outline the action that the Scottish Government has undertaken, and continues to undertake, to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to access the care that they need, when they need it?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree with Audrey Nicoll. In this financial year, 2025-26, NHS Scotland boards received increased investment in baseline funding. NHS Grampian received more than £1.34 billion. An additional £5.9 million will drive improvements in NHS Grampian’s accident and emergency performance by supporting initiatives that shift the balance of care and reduce hospital occupancy, including work on hospital at home and discharge without delay.

NHS Grampian was escalated to stage 4 of the support and intervention framework in May this year, and an assurance board is now in place. That assurance board has been working with NHS Grampian to develop the whole-system unscheduled care plan and will ensure that the additional funding delivers the improvements that Audrey Nicoll is looking for.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Too many of the NHS Grampian patients that I represent in Moray are not getting care when they need it. I have heard from a family whose husband and father suffered a heart attack at the weekend. He presented himself to A and E at Dr Gray’s hospital. He stayed in A and E for four days. There was standing room only. Patients were in beds in the corridors outside it. At one point on Saturday, there were six ambulances with patients in them outside A and E because there was no capacity to take them inside.

That has been going on for far too long. While the Government is looking at the financial implications of the NHS Grampian recovery plan, what does the cabinet secretary say to that family and so many others who are not getting the care that they need and deserve—indeed, the care that the staff want to give them? Time after time, they face chronic delays such as the one that that family has suffered.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would welcome Douglas Ross’s sharing information with me in writing, if he can, about the situation that his constituent has faced, which, on the face of it, sounds as though it involved an unnecessary and unacceptable delay, for which I apologise.

In response to Audrey Nicoll I set out the improvement plan that is in place to support the unscheduled care improvement that is required. Having made the point repeatedly in the chamber—in particular, to colleagues who represent the north-east—I have been very clear that the financial rigour that requires to be observed at NHS Grampian should not and must not get in the way of the improvements to patient care that I expect. I have made that point absolutely clear to NHS Grampian as well as to assurance board colleagues.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Proper and efficient scrutiny of health board finances is critical to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our health service. This week, Audit Scotland revealed that NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the health board that serves many of my constituents, owes nearly £130 million in loans and is on the brink of collapse. It has the highest outstanding loan amount of any Scottish health board.

Can the cabinet secretary provide any reassurance to people in my region that immediate action will be taken to recover NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s financial position?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member’s supplementary has gone a bit wide. The question was about NHS Grampian.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will briefly say that I expect Professor Gordon James, the new interim chief executive, to do exactly that.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will determine where the 15 pilots for the planned GP walk-in centres will be located. (S6O-05102)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Improving access to primary care is a key priority for this Government. It builds on our on-going commitment through the service renewal framework to shift more care into community settings and make services more accessible for patients.

As part of that, we will develop options to improve access to primary care, including local walk-in models, which will be open Monday to Sunday and provide more flexibility for patients. We will develop those proposals first as a pilot model that will complement—not duplicate or replace—current core general practice. The Scottish Government will set out further details as those plans develop.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Combined, Ayrshire’s three towns of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston have 33,000 residents. With high levels of deprivation, it is one of the largest populations in Scotland without a hospital. North Ayrshire also has Scotland’s lowest healthy life expectancy—a shockingly low 52 years.

Before the financial crash, an ambulatory care and diagnostic centre was discussed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the three towns should be prioritised for a pilot GP walk-in centre? When will members be informed of which areas have been chosen?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I very much hear the case that Kenneth Gibson is making on behalf of his constituents. Like him, I share the aim of reducing health inequalities, as set out in the population health and service renewal frameworks, which I think is what he is driving at in his question.

By ensuring that services are designed and delivered in ways that are inclusive, equitable and responsive to all communities’ needs, the aim is to target support at those who face the greatest barriers to accessing care because of geography, socioeconomic status, disability, ethnicity or other factors. Success will result in people accessing care more quickly, closer to home and more equitably. With national health service boards and primary care delivery partners, we are developing GP walk-in proposals that will reflect local needs. I will respond not only to Mr Gibson but to other colleagues on that in due course.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.

The Glasgow Local Medical Committee has raised concerns about the First Minister’s recent announcement to establish GP walk-in centres, not least of which is the risk that they pose to continuity of care. Like the LMC, I am deeply concerned about the lack of clarity that is provided around the proposal, including in the answer to Kenneth Gibson.

Surely a lot of planning had already gone into the policy before the announcement, yet when I wrote to the First Minister, I received no information on when the walk-in centres will be delivered, where they will be placed, how they will be staffed and how much they will cost. That strengthens the view that the policy is nothing more than an election stunt.

Perhaps the cabinet secretary can disprove that charge and tell me when the walk-in centres will be delivered, where they will be placed, how they will be staffed and how much each will cost, because that work must have been done.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Work is being done, and I will be more than happy to disprove Sandesh Gulhane’s cynicism when further details can be published.

Sandesh Gulhane raised the LMC’s concerns about continuity of care. I am confident that the LMC will be more reassured of late, given that the Government has committed to the single biggest investment in core GP services—£531 million over the next three years. There will be increases in GP recruitment and faster adoption of innovation, and I am confident that that will be welcomed by GPs across the country.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

We must pay attention to Dr Iain Morrison of British Medical Association Scotland, who has pointed out that the existing walk-in centres do not necessarily demonstrate good value for money, which we must keep thinking about. On the back of last week’s announcement, which Neil Gray just referred to, can he confirm how much money GP practices will see before the election next May?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes. The budget will contain an additional £98 million for general practice, pending the decision that the Parliament takes following the budget process. I am confident that Labour members, including Martin Whitfield, will support the budget, given the incredibly important investment that it will provide.

I am also confident—not least because we will engage with GPs and organisations such as the BMA—that, although models elsewhere in the United Kingdom have failed, we can make the system work here.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 6 was not lodged.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact that the proposed 15 walk-in primary care clinics will have on health inequalities. (S6O-05104)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Improving access to primary care is a key Government priority, as we build on our on-going commitment through the service renewal framework to shift more care into community settings and make services more accessible for patients. As part of that, we will develop options to improve access to primary care, including through local walk-in models, which will be open Monday to Sunday and will provide more flexibility for patients. We will develop the proposals first through a pilot model, which will complement, not duplicate, current core general practice. The Government will set out further details as the plans develop.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Has the cabinet secretary looked at the evidence from England that shows that walk-in centres led by general practitioners were used primarily by younger, more affluent patients with minor self-limiting conditions? Instead of improving access to core general practice or easing pressure on accident and emergency services, such walk-in centres might, in fact, exacerbate health inequalities by directing investment towards relatively healthy individuals. I am sure that the Royal College of General Practitioners will have raised that concern with the cabinet secretary. It has argued that that approach does not necessarily offer the best value for money, and it has called for greater investment in core general practice services. Before the Government proceeds with any new models of care, perhaps it should first strengthen core general practice to improve access and tackle health inequalities.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I confirm that we are doing both. Pending the Parliament’s support for the Government’s budget, we will, over the next three years, invest £531 million—the single biggest investment in core GP services—to expand those services and employ more GPs so that more people can be seen in general practice. We will also provide more flexibility for patients to ensure that they can get through the front door of the national health service as easily as possible. That is why we are piloting the walk-in clinics. I have been heartened by my engagement, including with deep-end general practices, on how we can use that model to tackle health inequalities, and that engagement will continue.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure comprehensive emotional, bereavement and practical support is accessible for people who have experienced baby loss. (S6O-05105)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The loss of a baby, no matter at what stage of pregnancy, has a profound and lasting impact on women and their families, so I offer my deepest sympathy to anyone who has experienced baby loss.

Care and support should be tailored to individual circumstances. For most people, that will come via health boards or third sector organisations, but a small number of people might require specialist mental health services via maternity and neonatal psychological intervention services. Our continued investment since 2019 has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of services that are available. In addition, national health service boards are implementing the national bereavement care pathway for pregnancy and baby loss.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I have been supporting a constituent who experienced a very traumatic miscarriage. Many of the difficulties that she faced arose from miscommunication or, in some respects, a total lack of communication. She was not made aware of much of the support that is available to her.

Although I recognise the extensive work that the minister mentioned to improve miscarriage care standards, in partnership with those who know exactly what it means when we get that wrong, it is troubling to hear of instances in which those standards have not been put into practice. What further steps can be taken to ensure that health boards have the necessary resources to provide comprehensive training for staff who work in dedicated early pregnancy units, so that those who experience baby loss, wherever they are, receive the support and compassion that they deserve?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Emma Roddick for raising the issue in the chamber. I recently attended a round table in the Parliament led by the baby loss charity Held In Our Hearts. It was attended by those who had experienced baby loss, by researchers and, importantly, by health boards. It was a very powerful event. To enable the best support for those families, a combination of all those stakeholders, working together, is needed. Earlier this year, I was pleased to announce the delivery framework for miscarriage care in Scotland, which is supported by £1.5 million in funding. The framework sets the expectation that NHS boards ensure that all staff receive training in providing compassionate, culturally competent care after miscarriage and other early pregnancy complications.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business in order to allow front-bench teams to change positions.

Motion without Notice

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 6.57 pm.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19421, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am pleased to open the debate on our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In the broad sweep of land reform history, today marks a watershed moment. It is a moment to pause and reflect on the progress that the Parliament has made on that journey and to look forward to the substantive changes that the bill will deliver.

The Scotland that we seek is one that is rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and hope. Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many not the few—those words reflect the Government’s desire to effect real change and to ensure that we deliver on the hopes and aspirations of our communities. At its heart, land reform is and has always been about the deeply rooted and complex relationship between Scotland’s land and her people. It goes to the heart of who we are and the values that we hold dear. In the words of Norman MacCaig:

“Who possesses this landscape?— The man who bought it or I who am possessed by it”?

Those are not new problems and this is not a new debate; stark inequalities and injustices have persisted in rural Scotland over centuries. The bill builds on the hopes, aspirations and achievements of generations of fearless campaigners and advocates of land reform, past and present, from the distant voices of the early campaigners and the hard-won land rights of our crofters and small landholders, to the pioneers of community ownership and the tenant farmers who dared to believe that a fairer future was possible.

The measures in the bill show that change is possible and that we can build a better future, allowing communities to breathe new life and new opportunity into rural Scotland. Across four days in the chamber, we have debated and considered more than 400 amendments. I want to reflect on the changes that the bill will bring.

For the first time, ministers will have unprecedented lotting powers for large estates over 1,000 hectares. That lotting can happen prior to sale or transfer, where it is in the public interest.

For the first time, communities will receive advance notification of impending sales or transfers of land by large landowners. That will increase transparency and will also allow them time to decide whether to submit a community right-to-buy application. Too often, people and communities feel powerless when the land that they live on is sold with no prior warning. The bill will ensure that that can no longer happen.

For the first time, large landowners will be required to engage meaningfully with communities, and to publish publicly available land management plans. Landowners will be legally required to set out how they use their land and how that contributes to key public policy priorities.

I know that there are concerns about the bill and how it will work in practice. I want to assure members that there will be guidance and support for landowners and communities. As I have said throughout the process, responsible landowners will have nothing to fear.

I also know that there are those here who do not think that the bill goes far enough. Throughout the parliamentary process we have worked on a cross-party basis to try to build consensus to make the bill as effective as possible, and it is right that we take a measured and proportionate approach, given that these are new policies. I have always said that we need to ensure that the bill does not have a disproportionate impact on smaller landholdings.

We as a Government, and as a Parliament, also have a responsibility to ensure that all of our legislation is compatible with our human rights obligations. The review provisions that are now in the bill will allow further evidence on the success of the provisions to be considered and changes justified.

Our land reform provisions will cover more than 50 per cent of Scotland’s land, and the powers that we have agreed in the bill will allow for future changes based on evidence.

I turn to part 2 of the bill. Tenant farmers and small landholders—like our crofters—are vital to the rich fabric of our rural communities, and this legislation builds on their hard-won rights, ensuring fairness and dignity. Our nation’s tenant farmers account for around one in five of our farmers and manage close to one quarter of our agricultural land. The reforms will enable them to deliver our vision for sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Over the past six months, I have also been speaking to farmers and landowners, and one of the things that I have often heard is that landowners are now concerned about renting out land to tenant farmers because they fear that they might not get that land back. Has the cabinet secretary heard that?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

That speaks to some of the claims that we have heard throughout the debate that the bill poses a threat to the letting of land in Scotland. However, the general trends that we see do not bear that out. Ultimately, the reforms that we are introducing are about fairness for our tenant farmers and about doing what is right. That is why I am proud of the measures that we are introducing.

We are modernising rights around farming practices, improvements and diversification. Our tenants must be able to effectively manage their land and businesses and make the changes that are right for them. All that we seek to do is to make getting to that outcome an easier process for all parties.

Previous reforms that have improved tenants’ rights, which were controversial at the time, have proved to be absolutely essential. The reforms that we are now making will ensure that tenants and small landholders can make a decent living and have the confidence to invest and improve their holdings, enabling them to access new support mechanisms and contribute to nature and climate outcomes.

The bill also respects the rights of landowners. Should they wish to exercise any right to resume land, they can do so. In turn, all that we seek to do through resumption reforms is ensure that tenants are compensated fairly.

However, there is a pattern to reforms in this area. Every Government since devolution that has sought to deliver improved rights and protections for our tenant farmers has come under blistering attack from powerful landed interests. In this case, that has included the false accusation that the bill introduces retrospective measures. It does not. The reforms will change the law, but they do not change the past. The changes affect the future exercise of existing rights, as many bills do.

The reality is that the approach of the reforms’ critics has nothing to do with a desire to have a vibrant tenanted sector, and everything to do with a broader desire to roll back reforms and wind the clock back to a feudal past that has long been consigned to the dustbin of history. I will do what is right. The measures are designed to be balanced, proportionate and, ultimately, fair.

Finally, this is the only Government to bring forward significant modernisation for small landholders in nearly a century.

The amendments will ensure that small landholders will benefit from a modern legal framework that is fit for the 21st century. Our reforms will enable the creation of new small landholdings, delivering a new route into agriculture for the next generation.

At its heart, land reform is about giving voice to the voiceless and empowering communities and individuals, and it is that quest for dignity and fairness that is at the heart of our bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

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

I begin by recognising the work that has gone into the bill. I have appreciated the constructive engagement from the cabinet secretary and her officials throughout the process. We have worked together on a number of areas, and I acknowledge that good will. However, the fact remains that, on the central principles of the bill, we will never see eye to eye.

There seems to be a consensus across much of the chamber that community land ownership is inherently better than private ownership and that large landowners—or medium landowners, as the bill has been amended—are somehow bad. I simply do not share that view. That is not to say that I am blind to the benefits that community ownership can bring. Across Scotland, there are powerful examples of communities taking control of local assets—from the Galson estate on Lewis, to Knoydart and Eigg—and delivering real benefits in housing, tourism, renewable energy and social cohesion. Those successes deserve recognition; however, we must be careful not to turn a success story into an ideology.

Private ownership, too, brings enormous value to rural Scotland. It brings investment, jobs and local spending. It supports the people who work our land, manage our forests and power our economy. When there is a balance of fairness and trust, landowners and communities can and do work together to create opportunity. We have seen that across Scotland, with new affordable housing built in partnership with estates, local businesses supported through shared land use, and renewable energy projects developed jointly between communities and private owners. Those partnerships do not make headlines, but they are the quiet engine of rural Scotland, delivering economic growth, employment and environmental progress.

This bill and previous land reform bills have set out priorities around access to land, so I will talk about tenancies. I agree with the Scottish Government’s ambition, as laid out in its agricultural reform programme, to see

“a thriving rural economy with more land-based jobs, stronger communities, and greater diversity of ownership.”

I support that sentiment, but sentiment alone will not deliver it. The policies must support those outcomes in practice, and for many new entrants and young farmers, that means tenancies.

The stage 1 report raises concerns that deserve our attention. It says:

“Others thought the changes, overall, would make owners even more loath to offer tenancies because of an increased financial risk. The fact that the changes are not solely forward-looking but will affect aspects of existing contracts was seen as unfair.”

If we want to encourage more tenancies, more access to land and more opportunity for young farmers, we must build confidence and we must make landowners feel that it is fair and secure to let land, not riskier or more bureaucratic. I do not believe that the bill does that.

The truth is stark: the area of tenanted land in Scotland has fallen dramatically over the past two decades. Twenty years ago, around 30 per cent of agricultural land was tenanted; today, it is closer to 18 per cent, and the trend continues downward. That means fewer opportunities for new entrants, less flexibility for farming businesses and a less resilient rural economy.

The Scottish Government, as a major landowner, should lead by example in supporting new farmers. Although nine starter farms were created on public land between 2012 and 2015, progress has stalled since, with the 2023 review highlighting missed opportunities and unclear plans. For instance, the Glen Prosen estate, bought in 2022 for nearly £18 million—

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Does the member not recognise that in the programme for government, it was set out that all public landholdings should look at what opportunities they can create for new entrants?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do remember seeing that, but I do not think that it has progressed since. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the Scottish Government has created only nine starter farms, and there were comments about unclear plans in the 2023 review.

Glen Prosen still lacks a complete land management plan. If ministers are serious about supporting new entrants, they must demonstrate that commitment on the land that they control.

Another central issue in the bill is property rights—rights that have existed for generations and that are fundamental to how our economy functions. We have heard concerns, including from respected voices such as Don Macleod, about the potential impact of the bill’s pre-notification and lotting requirements. Those could create uncertainty in land sales, add cost and delay and deter legitimate investment. That is not reform; it is bureaucracy.

There is a danger that, however well intentioned, the bill begins to resemble the kind of state control that we have seen elsewhere in Europe. Some have suggested that it echoes the French reforms of the 1960s, which created the SAFER model—a system in which the state has extensive powers over land transactions. That suggestion is probably unsurprising, given the Scottish Land Commission review in 2023.

It is true that that model reshaped rural France, where feudalism was abolished centuries earlier than in Scotland. It achieved some success in supporting young farmers and reducing speculation, but that was a long time ago and things have moved on. It also brought layers of bureaucracy and market distortion and reduced transparency. We should be careful to not repeat those mistakes. Scotland’s strength lies in its diversity and its ability to combine private enterprise with public purpose.

I do not agree that the bill is transformative. People in rural Scotland want a balance: a system in which landowners can invest with confidence, tenants can build a future and communities can choose to own land, without private owners being treated with suspicion. We need a rural economy that thrives without being tangled in red tape.

Good land management is about partnership, not punishment. When farmers, estates, communities and Government work together, we can achieve remarkable things—from tree planting and peatland restoration to tourism, education and food production. That is the Scotland that I want: one where families can make a living from the land, food production is valued and the next generation has the opportunity to stay, work and thrive. Our shared purpose should be trust built on fairness, freedom and belief in the people who make rural Scotland what it is today.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the legislation team, which helped to draft amendments, and all the parliamentary staff who have assisted with the bill and those who have worked late to allow the late sessions to happen. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped with our deliberations. A special thanks must go to Dr Josh Doble and Community Land Scotland for their help.

That said, it is disappointing that the next Parliament will have to return to the issue of land reform. The review of the community right to buy took place at the same time as this bill was passing through the Parliament. That review should have been part of the bill.

We are also concerned that the bill is timid—it will not make a huge change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. We wanted a public interest test to underpin the bill. Land is an economic driver, and the wellbeing of a community that lives on the land depends on the actions of the landowner. The landowner can either develop a community or be a dead hand upon it.

We have seen that, where communities have bought their own land, economic development has increased and co-operative working, joint enterprise and private business have flourished. It is in the interests of a community landowner for that to happen; they are answerable to their community and honour bound to work in the public interest. That is not the case for private landowners, and nothing in the bill imposes duties on a landowner to work in the public interest. Scottish Labour proposed a public interest test for those who buy land, but, sadly, it was voted down.

The Scottish Government is selling Kinloch castle on Rùm. It is looking to sell to a person who will take seriously their duties to the community. The property details specify that bids should include a statement—which will be shared with the community—that sets out how they will use the castle and how they will support nature, and promote the sustainability, culture and economy of the Isle of Rùm. If that is required for Rùm, should it not be required for every community?

We were keen that smaller areas of land should have been included in the bill. We welcome the reduction of the minimum size of included areas of land to 1,000 hectares, but that brings only 754 holdings into the scope of the bill. We would have preferred to see land areas of 500 hectares included—that would have brought 2,641 landholdings within the scope of the provisions.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Very briefly.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If the threshold had been reduced, how many family farms would it have brought into the scope of the bill?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I will give you the time back, Ms Grant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

It would have been very few—more than 97 per cent of family farms are below that acreage.

Neither does the bill take into scope cumulative holdings, so the landlords of huge swathes of Scottish land will not be brought within the scope of the bill. That is increasingly a problem when organisations are buying up parcels of land to offset carbon. Those organisations seek to greenwash polluting activity elsewhere. Any landowner that does not have the wellbeing of the communities that live and work at the heart of what they do will cause damage to those communities by pursuing their own interests over those of the people who live and work on the land.

We are also disappointed that the bill does not extend the community right to buy to urban areas. Empowering communities in those areas would have been a game changer—it would have tackled poverty and ensured that developers could not hold those communities to ransom.

What the bill does do—and the reason that we will support it—is stop off-market sales. Currently, land is changing hands without the knowledge of the people who live and work on it. The bill will change that by informing communities of sales and allowing them to consider how they deal with them.

The bill also introduces lotting to Scotland. We have not had that before, so we will watch with interest how it might impact on land ownership patterns in Scotland.

Land management plans will give communities an insight into the plans of their landowner and an input to how those plans impact on them. Again, it will be interesting to see whether that gives communities a greater say in land use.

We will support the bill, but we know that it is unfinished business and that the next Parliament will have to pick things up again. However, one thing that the Government can do here and now to empower communities and encourage community ownership is to ensure the future of the Scottish land fund, which is an essential means of funding community ownership and land reform. The Scottish Government had previously committed to having a £20 million fund by the end of the parliamentary session. That commitment has not been met. As the Parliament goes into purdah, it is estimated that 150 projects, with an estimated value of £23 million, are waiting.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Grant, will you please conclude?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I ask the cabinet secretary to expedite applications so that those projects can begin work for their communities before the end of the session.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Land is power, and those who have the land have the power. Nowhere is that more acutely felt than in the Highlands and Islands—the region that I represent—which has some of the most concentrated land ownership in Europe.

Scotland has a population of 5.5 million, yet half our country is owned by just over 400 people—a truly tiny minority. They are aristocrats, absentee billionaires, international corporations and minor royalty from around the world. Some are so secretive that their neighbours do not even know who they are. The question at the heart of the debate is whether the bill will meaningfully address that inequality in land ownership.

At minimum, any land reform legislation that is worthy of support needs to challenge the imbalance of power that comes from monopoly land ownership; provide transparency over who owns Scotland; and enable more communities to have a say—and a stake—in the activities that take place around them.

I thank stakeholders who have engaged with those questions over the past year of scrutiny of the bill. In particular, Community Land Scotland and Revive coalition members have been tireless advocates for ambitious legislation. My thanks go also to those stakeholders who, even though we fundamentally disagree on the issues at hand, took the time to meet me and my Scottish Green colleagues. I also thank the Parliament’s clerks and the bill team for their engagement on Green amendments.

After many hours of deliberation across the past two weeks, it is clear that the bill has not progressed meaningfully from where it started. My central disappointment lies with part 1. The measures simply do not go far enough in addressing the issue at the very heart of land reform, which is that the majority of Scotland's land is owned and controlled by a tiny minority. As stage 3 began, I made it clear to the Scottish Government that, in order to vote for the bill, I would need to be confident that I could look constituents in the eye and tell them that we had made significant progress and that the legislation had genuinely improved things. I regret that I am not in that position this evening.

First, the legislation does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest considerations are at the heart of the new measures. If Green amendments had been accepted, there would be legislation that places a limit on how much land an individual could own and requires them to demonstrate how they will use it for the public benefit.

Secondly, there is nothing in the bill to require that land management plans be implemented by land managers. That is a crucial set of provisions that could become a box-ticking exercise.

Thirdly, the measures do not tackle the concentration of land ownership—an issue that was consulted on by the Government, but never taken forward.

I appreciate that some Scottish Green amendments were accepted by the Government at stage 3. In particular, there will be stronger requirements on large landowners to set out how they will manage their land for nature recovery. In an era of climate and nature emergency, everyone must play their part. I am also glad that ministers will make it easier for new hutting communities to be established on public land.

However, this is not a time to pat ourselves on the back for making small changes at the edges. This is a moment for everyone to assess whether the bill addresses the fundamental purpose of land reform legislation. Without robust measures to challenge concentrated ownership, we are managing the symptoms while leaving the disease untreated. We are asking communities to continue their struggles without giving them the tools that they truly need.

The Scottish Greens cannot vote for this bill with enthusiasm. This legislation falls far short of what Scotland needs. This Government has once again refused to stand up to the landed elites and vested interests, and communities are paying the price.

We accept that the bill—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Burgess, you will need to bring your remarks to a close. You are over your time.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

We accept that the bill moves things marginally in the right direction, but the pace of change is glacial. However, we will not dismiss the improvements that have been made.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Please conclude, Ms Burgess.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

For those reasons, the Scottish Greens will abstain on the bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

This has been a marathon process, which makes it all the more important that we acknowledge the work that has been put in by all those who have contributed. That includes parliamentary staff across the board; members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee; the cabinet secretary and her officials, who have kept Opposition spokespeople updated, including with meetings at the margins of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation dinner; and the stakeholders who have given evidence and provided briefings.

As a side note, it has been particularly gratifying to see Andy Wightman back in the Parliament—sadly, up in the public gallery rather than down here in the chamber. On occasions like this, his absence is keenly felt.

Whatever we might think about 400 amendments being lodged at stage 3 and the fact that so many were pressed to a vote, that has undoubtedly enabled debate to take place on a wide range of issues over the final four days of scrutiny.

The issue of land reform is one that successive Parliaments and Governments have wrestled with over the years. Despite previous reforms, the need for further action is indisputable. As others have observed, the concentration of land ownership in Scotland has continued to increase, resulting in a small number of individuals controlling an overwhelming proportion of privately owned land in this country, often shrouded in mystery.

There is also compelling evidence that the inequitable distribution of land ownership has resulted in fewer opportunities for rural communities to invest in affordable housing and economic development projects. When those communities cannot meaningfully participate in the land buying process, vital opportunities for community growth are lost. The Scottish Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support much greater transparency in land ownership, as well as steps to help to revitalise our rural and island communities.

How far to go with reform has always been contested, making agreement difficult and consensus probably impossible. For example, balancing the rights of tenants and landlords requires care if unintended consequences and perverse incentives are to be avoided. The requirement for land management plans is reasonable and the threshold that will be set will offer consistency and is broadly proportionate. At the same time, however, those plans must not create an unreasonable burden by being overly complex. I raised that point repeatedly with the cabinet secretary. The Scottish Liberal Democrats supported amendments in that area. Likewise, we supported amendments to make clear that the maximum fine for breaches of plans, which is set at £40,000, will apply only in cases of repeat offences. That was raised with me by constituents in Orkney, and it is something that I highlighted to the cabinet secretary on numerous occasions.

There were also concerns about the bill’s proposed changes to resumption, especially in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and incontestable notice to quit in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I recognise that, in response, the cabinet secretary lodged amendments at stage 3 that aimed to address some of the issues that were raised by NFUS and others, particularly around changes to 2003 tenancies.

For some, the changes will not go far enough, but I hope that the matter can be kept under review. For that to happen, we will need to understand how the legislation works after contact with reality. I am therefore pleased that Parliament agreed to changes that will require land commissioners and the Scottish ministers to undertake a thorough review of the “impact and effectiveness” of the bill after five years. I congratulate Martin Whitfield on securing that commitment and wiring in post-legislative scrutiny on an issue that I confidently predict, as others have done, will continue to occupy Parliaments and Governments for years to come.

At this point, however, although the bill is far from perfect, I believe that it represents a step in the right direction, which Scottish Liberal Democrats will support at decision time this evening.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate, with speeches of up to four minutes from back benchers.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Since it was reconvened, this Parliament has delivered radical and ambitious land reform, providing a challenge to the highly concentrated pattern of land ownership across huge areas of Scotland that a number of members have mentioned.

The final version of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that we have in front of us this evening is the product of, among many other things, a parliamentary marathon of amendments over the past week or two. I know that there are people in the gallery—at least one of them is a constituent of mine—who have loyally followed the bill’s progress evening after evening and long into the night. That indicates the desire to see the bill passed. In fact, many people have been in touch with me urging the Parliament to pass the bill. That is because the bill represents a vital step forward in allowing communities across Scotland to have a greater say over what happens to the land on which they live.

The land is an important part of who we are, and I am proud of our long-standing commitment to delivering meaningful land reform and diversifying land ownership in the public interest. However, as others have rightly pointed out, the concentration of land ownership can be seen to have worsened in recent years, with 421 landowners owning 50 per cent of private rural land. That number is down from 440 in 2012. That is despite significant progress in the number of communities that have been supported through the Scottish land fund in achieving their buyouts, in both rural and urban areas, since then. We should be proud of that progress. That said, we must do more to achieve our land reform objectives. We must close loopholes and make it easier for communities to successfully acquire land for the common good.

During our deliberations in Parliament, some members have argued that the bill does not go far enough, while Mr Mountain has, with a very thorough efficiency, sought to oppose every part of the bill for going too far. I consider the bill to be a helpful and pragmatic measure, although I am sure that we will return to the topic in future.

Among many other measures, the bill will introduce lotting provisions, which will allow communities to buy smaller portions of land on an estate’s sale. Prior notifications of land sales for communities will also be implemented through the legislation. That is important because it will prevent situations in which communities have land sold from underneath them without even being told about it. The requirement for land management plans will require greater transparency and engagement and proactive use of land assets in line with national objectives.

As of 2023, 72 per cent of community-owned land in Scotland was located in the Western Isles. In my constituency, more than 75 per cent of people live on land that is community owned. That fact is not unconnected to the role that the islands have played in the long fight across Scotland for land rights. The crofters war of the late 19th century, in response to the Highland clearances, secured the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, while later land raids led to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919.

Looking forward, it is important to use the legislative levers that are available to us to deal with the problems of the future. I am thinking of the need to prevent asset management companies—the names Gresham House and Oxygen Conservation spring unbidden to mind—from any aggressive acquisition of huge swathes of our hillsides. The on-going challenge for us all will be to ensure that local communities remain able to make productive and positive use of the land around them for the benefit of everyone living in their area. The bill will enable exactly that.

The bill represents an important step forward in Scotland’s progress on land reform and will empower communities to give themselves a future. I urge members to vote to pass the bill at decision time this evening.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members, as I constantly do, of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am the owner of 202 hectares of land. I rent about 200 hectares of land under a non-agricultural tenancy. I also have about five hectares of land under an Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 tenancy. I have feet in many camps when it comes to land, and I have always supported land reform.

I echo the thanks that Mr McArthur put on the record to those people who have helped members to get amendments through. In particular, I thank the legislation team for being so amenable to the few amendments that I put forward.

I started off looking at the bill bearing in mind the information that had been given to me by a land reformer who said that it would not deliver what the cabinet secretary said that it would and by a legal adviser who said that it was “junk law”. This is the Scottish Parliament’s third attempt at land reform. None of it has really delivered what the Parliament wanted, and we predict that there will be a fourth attempt. What we know is that the first attempt at land reform resulted in Andrew Stoddart’s court case, and the second resulted in the Salvesen v Riddell case—and at what cost to the Scottish Government? We will find out, because I have put in some freedom of information requests that will, no doubt, prove that cost.

My amendments did not seek to do what Dr Allan suggested, which was to kibosh the bill; rather, they sought to prevent the cabinet secretary—or probably her successor—from facing the legal challenges that I believe that the bill will result in.

There are some clear casualties of the bill, investor confidence being one and tenancies being another. Why are those important? We need investor confidence if we are going to address our net zero targets, including on planting and looking after the remote areas of Scotland. I have looked back at the details, which show that, in March 2023, Lorna Slater—sadly, she is not here—signed a groundbreaking £2 billion investment deal with private investors and the bank Hampden & Co. The aim was to get them to invest in some of the targets that we sought to achieve. This land reform bill will not help to promote that investment. We can argue about whether that is right or wrong, but the Government does not have the money available to invest in some of the targets that we need to achieve. If members do not believe that, I point to the outstanding letters from Scottish Financial Enterprise and from renewables and forestry companies on their fears about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The bill will make real problems for us.

As far as tenancies are concerned, let me be clear that changing the law retrospectively comes with huge problems. We know that there has been a decrease in tenancies—I have raised that for long enough.

Part of the bill that I found particularly difficult is the exclusion of large landowners from being the land and community commissioner. It seems to be fine for ex-ministers and ex-special advisers to take that role, but not large landowners. I think that that is wrong. Fundamentally, it goes against the grain of everything that I believe about the Scottish Parliament in relation to equality.

We have debated amendments, including a lot of my amendments. I am very glad that, in most cases, they were debated in the spirit in which they were lodged. However, at one stage, one of them was not, and that was sad. My mother, who is long since deceased, would have said that that was probably because the person was overtired and that they should not have done it in that way. My mother often had wise things to say. I will leave it at that, but I am afraid that I cannot support the bill in the way in which it is drafted.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Presiding Officer, 2025 is a year of anniversaries. It is a quarter of a century since the death of Donald Dewar, who warned that Scotland’s land had

“too much control in too few hands”—

that radical action was needed.

It is 60 years this year since the death of Tom Johnston, who began his great work on land ownership with a general indictment of the

“various divinities, dignities and privileges”

of Scots landlords as a class. Our

“Old Nobility is not noble”,

he famously concluded.

It is exactly half a century since the publication of the first “Red Paper on Scotland”, in which John McEwen boldly set his objective to see

“the stranglehold of our mainly absentee landlordism destroyed”,

and in which Jim Sillars argued that, for democratic socialist land policies to be applied, it required the

“devolvement of legislative power from Westminster to a Scottish Parliament.”

But, oh, how we have let them down. How we have let the people down with the timidity of our action, including the rejection of radical amendments to this bill.

This may be my last chance to speak on land reform in this Parliament. My faithfulness to this cause stretches back almost four decades, when, under the tutelage of Alex Falconer, I wrote a short pamphlet entitled “Who Owns Mid-Scotland and Fife?” In it, we exposed that, in the old Central region, including part of the area that I am now privileged to represent in this Parliament, fewer than 100 landowners—92, in fact—owned 50 per cent of all the land. It became yet another compelling reason for me to join the campaign for a Scottish Parliament and why I stood for election to be a member of the Scottish Parliament.

It has been a privilege to be here. I have loved almost every minute of it, but I will leave it, as I entered it, with half of Scotland still owned by fewer than 500 people. I will leave it as campaigners like Andy Wightman have shown: over the last decade, land ownership in Scotland has not got more diverse, it has got narrower; the estates have grown larger and the owners fewer; and there is more capital accumulation, more land monopoly and more ownership concentration, not less.

I will leave it, as well, to the echo of speeches in this debate by Edward Mountain, to whom I bear no personal animus, but they are speeches that could have been delivered by any member of the official roll of the baronetage at any time over the last four centuries.

Although the cabinet secretary told us that this bill is a

“significant step on our land reform journey”

and that the Government was

“committed to delivering ambitious proposals”,—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; c 83, 80.]

I will leave Parliament knowing, as this Government must know, that this bill is neither ambitious nor significant, that it will not fundamentally tackle the power imbalance that exists, that this bill will make no structural difference to the distribution of land ownership and that class inequality will remain Scotland’s hereditary curse.

The final words of that pamphlet written all those years ago, when I was in my 20s, I still stand by. So let them be my final words today:

“Inevitably there should be a move toward the common ownership of land in order that the benefits of what is after all a natural gift can be once again shared by the whole community.”

It will be for those elected to the next Parliament to rekindle the vitality of those ideas, to think big and act radical; to take on those vested interests. Although, by then, I will be gone, I will be outside Parliament—this cause of land justice, this demand for equality and this claim of right for our democracy will forever, forever, have my undying support.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The contributions that we have heard today reflect the depth of feeling about land reform across the chamber. I share the disappointment expressed by Rhoda Grant that smaller areas of land were not brought into the bill’s scope. Liam McArthur reminded us that inequality in land ownership creates fewer opportunities for rural communities to evolve. Alasdair Allan talked about the history of the struggle for land reform, going back as far as 1886.

However, I must return to my central concern, which is that part 1 does not go far enough. Without putting in place robust measures to address concentrated ownership, we are treating the symptoms while leaving the disease untouched. Let me be specific about what is missing. The legislation does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest outweighs private interest when it comes to how the land around us is used. Had our proposal for a public interest test been accepted, we could have had legislation that placed a limit on how much land an individual can own and required them to demonstrate how they would use it for the public benefit. That would have been meaningful land reform.

Instead, the bill asks communities to continue their struggles without giving them the tools that they truly need. The concentration of ownership persists. The imbalance of power remains. Communities across the Highlands and Islands and rural Scotland will still find themselves fighting uphill battles against landowners who control vast estates but face little accountability and limited transparency about their intentions.

As I said earlier, the Scottish Greens cannot vote whole-heartedly for this legislation given that part 1 of the bill falls so far short of what Scotland needs and what our communities deserve. However, I acknowledge the achievement for Scotland’s tenant farmers in part 2 of the bill.

Recently, I was contacted by a tenant farmer in my region who wants to do more nature-friendly farming but has found themselves stymied by a lease that,

“Although written in 1982, reads like something from the 1800s.”

They added:

“It doesn’t reflect the progressive and modern lens we approach farming with … All we want here is to be able to farm in a way that allows us to earn a living, contribute to our communities, produce high quality food and look after our environment.”

I am glad to have been able to make some small changes at stage 2 that will allow tenants to take up regenerative agricultural practices and convert to organics without needing permission from their landlord. Such measures are a start as we shift our agricultural policy towards supporting those farmers who are looking to innovate because of the environmental changes that we expect to see in the coming decades.

This is not the end of the journey. I say to those in Community Land Scotland, to Revive coalition members and to communities across Scotland who are fighting for land justice: we, the Scottish Greens, remain absolutely committed to the transformative land reform that Scotland requires. The Government’s bill might not deliver that, but the movement for change continues to grow stronger. Today is not the end of the road, and we will not give up the fight for proper land reform.

It is my sincere hope that the next Scottish Parliament will finally deliver bold legislation to address the concentration of land ownership, to tackle the neglected issues of urban land reform and to improve the community right to buy process so that more communities can participate. The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not inevitable; it is a political choice, and political choices can be changed. The Scottish Greens will continue the fight.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is a great privilege to close this debate for Scottish Labour and to speak alongside my comrades Rhoda Grant and Richard Leonard. I start by paying tribute to everyone who has engaged in the land reform process. Any success in the bill that will diversify land ownership in Scotland is the collective effort of everyone who responded to the consultations, everyone who provided expert advice evidence and everyone who challenged the Scottish Government to make the bill count. That work will continue, because it must.

Scotland is now prey to mega lairds, private corporations that buy up land for the benefit of portfolio shareholders and investors. Their accumulation of land, wealth and power is often dressed up as climate friendly or environmentally responsible. Let us be clear: it is not.

Take Oxygen Conservation, whose stated business is supposedly to help fight the climate and biodiversity crises. It has quickly taken ownership of numerous Scottish landholdings and estates. Most recently, it bought up BrewDog’s failed Lost Forest estate, which has taken its total holdings to nearly 20,000 hectares. However, its extractive business model and inadequate community engagement have raised alarm bells among land reform experts. A revenue model that is based on polluting carbon credit sales will not deliver what our land, climate and natural environment so desperately need. Aggressive acquisitions and the quick flipping of land as a portfolio treats one of our most priceless common goods as a cheap commodity to be traded by the wealthiest.

That is why it is right that, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, some large landholdings will be required to produce land management plans to show how they intend to manage and develop the land. I truly hope that those modest changes make a difference. However, because of the Government’s refusal to accept my amendments to lower the threshold and introduce a presumed limit on ownership of 500 hectares, more large landholdings will be left out of the scope of the bill than will be included in it. Instead, the Scottish Government has taken a blinkered approach to ownership and aggregation of landholdings. Concentrated land ownership is a nationwide issue, yet the Scottish Government has refused to take a nationwide approach to aggregate land holdings.

Gresham House is now the second-largest private landowner in Scotland, thanks to 244 separate landholdings across roughly 74,000 hectares. That kind of superscale land ownership will barely be impacted by the bill, however, as only a handful of those 244 fragments are over the 1,000-hectare threshold. That is why I am proud that my amendment to review whether the size of the areas of land included in the bill needs to be reduced was passed yesterday. I look forward to seeing that review take place.

The examples of Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House demonstrate the inadequacy of Scotland’s current system and how the Scottish Government’s bill—while welcome—will not go far enough. Both examples show how private corporations will always seek private profit before public good, even while claiming that they are acting in the public interest. That is why it was so important to have a forward-facing public-interest assessment of buyers of land in the bill. It is deeply disappointing that, even after months and years of scrutiny, evidence and amendment, the Scottish Government did not accept that.

Large-scale and corporate land ownership cannot contribute to action on inequality while its decisions on land ownership and land management remain focused on extracting wealth. Instead, we need land ownership that works for people, not profit. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity to challenge the current pattern of land ownership and to create a fairer, more accountable and more democratic system of diversified land ownership. It remains to be seen how much of an impact its provisions will have but, given what was left out of the bill, it seems like yet another missed opportunity from the Scottish Government.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As we come to the end of the bill process, I can only reflect on the many substantive contributions from colleagues. As an Opposition, we have tried to amend this flawed bill, bringing forward the concerns of industry groups, rural bodies and our own constituents in order to make the bill workable, but, to be honest, it has been like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

I have to congratulate the Scottish National Party Government on one thing: uniting so many people in their view that the bill will not bring about the change that they desire. We heard time and again at committee from witnesses, including estate managers and land reform campaigners, that the bill would not meet the aims that had been set out. Many witnesses expressed concerns to us about the impact that the bill would have on their livelihoods and communities. We heard about the risks to financing that are being brought about by the uncertainty caused by the bill—a point that was raised by Edward Mountain, who said that the bill will not boost investors’ confidence as we need it to.

We heard from farmers who fear that large family farms will now be brought into the scope of the bill, with the threshold for land management plans being reduced at a time when Labour’s cruel family farm tax is just filtering through. I have also heard from farmers who want to retire and rent out parts of their land to the next generation but who feel that it is too risky. Their concern is that they would never get the land back, because of what the bill is doing. That is an unintended consequence of the bill that will make it harder for new farmers to rent land and get into running their own farms. It is, as Tim Eagle said, the opposite of what we should be doing.

There is also uncertainty around lotting and what happens with staff. Let us remember that estates are businesses that pay their taxes, employ people in rural areas and contribute to their local communities. If an estate is sold, the Government can decide that the business needs to be split up, in effect. In instances where that happens, the bill is silent about what happens to the employees. The bill is bad news for estate workers.

We have heard from groups such as Scottish Land & Estates, which said that the proposals were worrying, and NFUS, which told us that the bill “could damage rural businesses”. The head of land and property at Turcan Connell described the bill as “junk law”. Yet, in the light of such widespread discontent among those who know what they are talking about, we have found ourselves at this point. The cabinet secretary said that “change is possible”, but I do not feel that the bill will bring the change that is required, and most of the witnesses at committee said the same.

Tim Eagle was right to recognise the amount of work that has been done, especially by Parliament staff—I agree with that completely. I also commend the way in which the cabinet secretary has approached the bill and reached out to other groups. Tim Eagle said that some of the large estates are

“the quiet engine of rural Scotland.”

He also pointed out that the area of tenanted land in Scotland has reduced dramatically—unfortunately, however, the bill will not reverse that trend.

Rhoda Grant made a good point about the community right to buy, which is still under review. We also heard at committee that it should have been part of the bill, and I think that that has been a missed opportunity.

Liam McArthur said that land management plans should not be overburdensome and complicated. I agree, and we need to keep a close eye on that when the regulations come forward.

I agreed with something that Mercedes Villalba said about the concerns around Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House. We have to remember that Gresham House was backed by the Scottish National Investment Bank.

The Scottish Conservative group remains opposed to this flawed bill, and we agree with the many voices outside the Parliament that have raised significant concerns. We will vote against the bill this evening, and we call on other colleagues to listen to their rural communities and constituents and to join us in voting no.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am grateful to members across the chamber not only for their contributions today, but for their significant contributions during the bill’s passage through Parliament. It is clear from the contributions today what passion there is around the subject and what land reform means to people. Land reform is an emotive issue, and rightly so. It affects us all, whether we live in rural or urban Scotland. How the land beneath or around us is owned, used or managed matters, as does access to land, which is why the bill matters.

No single piece of legislation could possibly tackle all the issues that we face, which have been centuries in the making. I recognise the points that Rhoda Grant raised during the debate, and I know that we have more work to do. A lot of that work is already under way, whether it is the community right to buy review or the work on compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. We also have the review provisions that were passed in Martin Whitfield’s amendments, which means that there will be more to learn and more to do in the future.

Tim Eagle made some important points about recognising the importance of opportunities for the next generation and new entrants to farming. He made the point that the Scottish Government should lead by example, and I absolutely agree with that. I fully expect our public landholdings to lead the way in the creation of new small landholdings. That would be the perfect example, now that we will be able to create new small landholdings for the first time in a century.

In closing, I want to reflect on this historic moment in our land reform journey and look forward to what can be better days ahead. In James Robertson’s literary masterpiece “And the Land Lay Still”, he makes it clear that the land and the people do not lie still. His novel sweeps across people and places, and across the latter half of the 20th century, documenting the huge changes and the upheaval that took place in Scotland at that time, in no small part contributing to the very Parliament in which we now sit.

That, in essence, is the point of land reform: to ensure that how we use and steward our land—one of Scotland’s most precious resources—does not lie still. We must embrace change and look forward to a fairer future and one of opportunity for all our people, not just those who, either through birth, wealth or inheritance, have had the privilege of ownership and control of this land—our land.

We must use the Parliament’s legislative powers to benefit the many and not the few. They must benefit our tenant farmers, building on their hard-won rights to ensure that they thrive in the decades ahead; our communities, which have the right to feel that they belong and that the land on which they live and work belongs to them, should they so wish it; and people who have always wanted to live on the land. The new powers will help to turn those dreams into reality for many.

I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has helped to make the bill possible. They include the Scottish Land Commission, which undertook initial research and then advised on the bill’s provisions over a number of years, and the more than 500 individuals and groups who contributed their expertise, knowledge and views to the consultation. I thank the bill team for their tremendous efforts and work on the bill, and all the stakeholders who have engaged with me as well as the bill team throughout the bill’s passage. The bill is stronger for that engagement.

I thank the committees that scrutinised the bill for their work. I also give a general thank you to MSPs across the chamber. I genuinely want to thank you all, as I know that you have all taken a keen interest in the bill. I really appreciate MSPs taking time to engage with me. Even when we have not always agreed, those discussions have been valuable.

There are also the MSPs and ministers who came before and who, over the quarter century of devolution, began Scotland’s land reform journey. Their tireless efforts have led us to this moment. They include the late Donald Dewar, the late Winnie Ewing, George Lyon, the late John Farquhar Munro, Rob Gibson, Peter Peacock, Aileen McLeod and, of course, Roseanna Cunningham.

Land reform reminds us that lasting change is never owned by one party or generation; it has always been a joint endeavour, forged by those who seek a fairer Scotland. The bill represents an ambitious step forward on our land reform journey. I am proud of what we have achieved together and honoured to have led the bill through Parliament on behalf of the Scottish ministers.

Today also marks a poignant moment for me, as this is the last major piece of legislation that I will take through the Parliament as a cabinet secretary. I grew up in and represent the communities across Angus and the Mearns, among landscapes that mean so much to me, so this bill is special.

Throughout the bill’s passage, I have been inspired by another of Scotland’s great classic novels and one of my personal favourites, which is set in the Mearns: “Sunset Song”. No one describes the beauty of that landscape, the ties and struggles of community and the pull and the draw of the land better than Lewis Grassic Gibbon. In the words of Chris Guthrie:

“I longed to hear the Scots words of my parents from my far off young life, through all of their days and fight with the land—nothing endured but the land.

People who had lived here were but a breath—but the land endured.

At that moment in the gloaming, I felt I was the land”.

I hope that all of us who share the belief that change can and must happen will support the bill and will together ensure a brighter and fairer future for the people of Scotland. I commend the bill to Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

Maternity Services

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19512, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on Scotland’s maternity services. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The birth of a child is probably the most significant and special event for any mother, but in Scotland today, sadly, that is not always the case. Last week, the BBC’s “Disclosure” programme reported on the tragic case of Jacqui Hunter. Jacqui died in childbirth from an amniotic fluid embolism. She had been given eight times the recommended dose of the drug used to bring on labour. An NHS Tayside review found that higher doses of that drug increase the risk of an amniotic fluid embolism and that the incorrect dose

“must be considered as a major contributing factor to AFE and subsequent death”.

The panel also said that Jacqui should have been informed of the medication error. Her grieving husband, Lori, only found out after her death. Thankfully, deaths such as Jacqui’s are rare. However, for far too many women, childbirth can be a difficult experience. As Lynsey Hamilton, a maternity campaigner, said when talking about her experience of pre-eclampsia:

“You will see the headlines and hear the statistics. Behind them there are families, mothers and babies who are being let down throughout Scotland due to the lack of funding and investment in maternity services.”

Last month, I travelled to Wick in Caithness, where I heard stories of mothers being forced to travel more than 100 miles to give birth, despite Wick having an amazing midwife-led maternity unit. I heard from the Caithness Health Action Team about a mother expecting twins who gave birth to her first child in Golspie and then continued the journey in two separate ambulances for the second twin to be born in Inverness. Nine in 10 women in Caithness give birth in hospital in Inverness—many of them are induced—but, despite the efforts of midwives, that does not mean that they receive acceptable maternity care. That is because Raigmore hospital is bursting at the seams. Women at the start of labour are told to go home and wait, but as home is more than 100 miles away, they end up wandering the streets of Inverness, sometimes at night.

I heard from Ashlyn, who arrived at the hospital to be induced but was told that it was too busy and was asked if she could come back two hours later. That went on and on and, in the end, she waited more than 12 hours to be induced.

Raigmore hospital’s maternity unit was supposed to be upgraded, but the Scottish Government paused the funding days after the unit was approved for development.

Across Scotland, our rural and remote communities want young families to stay and thrive. Instead, mothers are being forced to choose between healthcare and the place that they call home. In Stranraer, the closure of local maternity services means that expectant mothers are forced to travel 140 miles on a round-trip to Dumfries for care.

Claire Fleming, who is based near Stranraer, had children in 2012, 2015, 2019 and 2021, so she has seen the decline in maternity services throughout her four pregnancies. Her first daughter was, unfortunately, stillborn, but Claire says that she received outstanding support. In 2015, when Claire had her second child, she had a named midwife, and she had to go to Dumfries for an appointment only once. By 2021, when she had her fourth child, and extreme morning sickness, she had to make the 140-mile return journey for every single appointment—even appointments that were just five minutes long. The treatment in that instance was a drip in her arm. As Claire has asked many times, why could that not have been done closer to home? Women in remote and rural areas are right to call that out.

We know that services can be better. Orkney, which I know is close to the cabinet secretary’s heart, may be one of the most remote parts of Scotland, but its maternity unit has met the UNICEF gold standard. The unit is run by midwives, who are supported by consultant obstetricians, but mums know that in an emergency they will be transported via helicopter to Aberdeen. There are around 180 births a year in Orkney but, unlike in Caithness, around 80 per cent of them happen at the local maternity unit.

There is more that we can and should do in rural and remote areas, but the centralisation of services for mothers and babies is a nationwide issue. Families from Dundee to Lanarkshire have raised concerns about their specialist neonatal units being downgraded. Of course everybody wants the sickest, most premature babies to receive the highest standard of care. “The Best Start: Five-Year Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care 2017–2024 Report” outlined the new model in 2017, and it recommended up to five intensive neonatal units. However, the Scottish Government has decided to deliver the minimum of three, meaning that women could be separated from their babies or forced to travel hundreds of miles just to be with them. The Scottish Government must listen to local families and clinicians, working with them, not against them.

The failures in maternity care are not just about geography. Last week, an inspection report highlighted failures at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh maternity unit, which is less than four miles down the road from where we are now. Expectant mums are waiting as long as 29 hours to be induced, and they have been sent to other hospitals because there simply was not enough room. Only 13 per cent of the charts for patients’ essential observations were fully completed. Women were left alone in pain, with no call system to ask for help. There were delays in the escalation of care, and midwives were in tears because of the pressure.

An unannounced inspection in Ninewells earlier this year painted a similarly damning picture. Across Scotland, women are being let down at one of the times in their lives when they are most vulnerable.

I heard from Julie Keegan, a national health service nurse in Glasgow who works in intensive care, who noticed that her newborn son Mason was hypothermic, listless and struggling to breathe. She rushed to the city’s Royal hospital for children, where Mason died six hours later. A significant adverse event review later found that his temperature had been recorded as 35 degrees, when it was in fact so low that it was unrecordable, while other records had not been completed, leading to a failure to recognise just how sick he was.

Julie believes that a toxic workplace culture played a part in Mason’s death, and she backs a national investigation into maternity and neonatal services. She said:

“It is a complete whitewash. They should be working with families, not fighting them, to ensure that this never happens again.”

Too often, the response to such tragedies is a veil of secrecy. What is more, Mason’s tragic death is not Julie’s only experience of poor neonatal or maternity services. Earlier this year, expecting another child, she was given an appointment to be induced on a Monday. She ended up waiting for four days, because the maternity unit was short staffed.

Experiences such as those are deeply distressing for the mothers and families involved. They are also distressing for staff. Across Scotland, front-line NHS staff are overworked, understaffed and burnt out. The Ninewells inspectors found a 33 per cent shortfall in the number of experienced midwives. The NHS Lothian report found that midwives at the RIE were “emotional and tearful” while they talked about the

“overwhelming feeling of helplessness, frustration and worry for not only patients, but staff safety.”

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am happy to do so.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Although patient safety is paramount, does the member accept that the reduction in the number of midwives through poor workplace management has reduced the choice that women have? Women should have a choice about where to give birth that is not based only on safety.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I agree—understaffing is one of the key problems in some of the distressing cases that I outlined and also in being able to provide safe midwifery-led services locally. I will come on to deal with that issue.

Research conducted by Labour found that, in 2024 alone, there were 333,296 unfilled nurse and midwifery shifts. Behind those figures are caring, experienced staff who are forced to make impossible choices due to the Scottish National Party’s managed decline of our NHS. Year after year, the Royal College of Midwives has repeatedly warned about workplace shortages and the lack of opportunity for midwives to develop their skills.

Finlay Carson might remember that, last year, there was the scandal of newly trained midwives facing unemployment. The Scottish Government had spent millions of pounds on their training but could not find the funding to give them jobs—at a time when there were thousands of vacancies.

We have no workforce plan, skills going to rot, mothers not getting the support that they need and experienced front-line staff going off sick or retiring with burnout. Midwives and other front-line staff are trying their best, but they are being set up to fail. I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to set up a task force to take immediate action, but, by itself, that is not enough. The Government is littered with task forces and recommendations that have not been implemented.

We need a national investigation, not in place of the task force but alongside it, starting now. That is what the families want and what this Parliament should deliver. We need maternity services that wrap their arms around women and babies, rather than expecting women to wait for days on end to be induced because it is more convenient to do it that way. We need transparency, not secrecy. We need the duty of candour to be effective, rather than only words on a page. We need more than three specialist neonatal services to cover the diverse geography of Scotland. We need to learn from the best international practice, to deliver the highest standards of remote and rural care. We need a proper workforce plan that enshrines our investment in the next generation of midwives. That will pay off, so that maternity units are properly staffed. We need to ensure that we hold those at the top accountable, while fostering a workplace culture where staff feel supported and there is openness, transparency and willingness to learn from mistakes.

The United Kingdom Labour Government has delivered record funding for Scotland’s public services—an extra £5.2 billion to spend in this year alone. A fraction of that would have made a difference to maternity services. This is about investing in the next generation, in women’s health, in our rural communities and in Scotland’s future.

Today, MSPs of all parties have a chance to listen to the mums, dads, doctors and experts, and to agree to a national investigation into these crucial services so that mothers and babies can be safe and get the treatment that they need. [ Interruption .] I am glad that a baby is having the last word.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Unfortunately, the baby cannot move the motion, Ms Baillie, so I would be grateful if you could do so. [ Laughter .]

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I move,

That the Parliament is alarmed by the serious patient safety issues raised in recent inspection reports of maternity services, and calls on the Scottish Government to launch a national investigation into the design and delivery of maternity and neonatal services across Scotland.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Jackie Baillie for lodging the motion for debate. I agree with a substantial amount of what she has put on the record today.

I provided a statement in the Parliament last week in response to the recent concerning reports on maternity services in Scotland. I am aware that families have been impacted by NHS failures and that stories were covered by the BBC “Disclosure” documentary. I have just met one of those families; they are in the public gallery. I put on record my deepest condolences to them and give my thanks for their bravery in speaking up about their personal experiences. I know how difficult that has been, but it helps to ensure that we can learn and make improvements. I am genuinely grateful to them for that, and I would be happy to meet them, if that is possible.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the experience of women who miscarry needs to be looked at, too? One of my constituents had to wait while two parts of the NHS argued over who should see her, because her pregnancy was at the 12-week point—too late for the early pregnancy unit but too early for the triage unit. She then had to return several times for checks on her pregnancy hormone levels, which were not reducing. She was in an area alongside pregnant women but she had miscarried her baby. Will the cabinet secretary take action now to ensure that our constituents in Lothian get the change that is urgently needed?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree with Sarah Boyack. I expect that to be part of the improvements that need to come through from Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s review, but it can also be considered as part of the task force that Ms Minto is chairing.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.

Repeated surveys show that obstetric and gynaecology departments have the highest level of bullying of any specialty. Given that culture comes from the top, is it any wonder that there is a culture of secrecy when significant errors happen? It takes brave women to stand up and speak to shine a light on the problems.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I made it absolutely clear in response to questions from Dr Gulhane’s colleague Stephen Kerr last week about my very clear expectation for the culture in our NHS, which is reinforced by what we found in the report by Healthcare Improvement Scotland regarding NHS Lothian. I have put that on the record. I will not tolerate poor culture, and that has been made clear to NHS board chief executives.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will Neil Gray take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I need to make some progress, so I hope that members will forgive me. I will see whether I can come to Mr Kerr later.

I know that members of the Parliament will agree that the safety and wellbeing of mothers, babies and staff must be our priority. I also want to reassure pregnant women and their families that our maternity and neonatal services are safe, although I will talk about situations in which that has not been the case.

Women in Scotland have the right to choose where to give birth, and those who choose to give birth in our hospitals can be assured that they are the safest possible place to give birth, with access to the best possible care. Wherever women choose to give birth, whether in an obstetric-led unit, a midwifery-led unit or at home, they can and should expect the highest quality of care that is tailored to their needs. That is why I accept the initial part of Ms Baillie’s motion and why I am sympathetic to the majority of Mr Gulhane’s amendment.

As I said in my statement last week, I share concerns about Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s report into maternity services in Lothian and those raised by the BBC “Disclosure” documentary. The findings are completely unacceptable, and it is right that the Parliament takes a firm position that improvements must be made urgently, which I welcome the opportunity for today.

I also recognise—not least following the conversation that I have just had with Lori Quate and Willie Rennie, for which I am very grateful to them both—that trust has been broken between families who have been let down and the NHS. I am determined to ensure that families have the opportunity to feed into the improvements that we want to see and to share their experiences candidly. I am therefore exploring whether that can be done through the HIS inspection process. I will also ask the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland for her views on how we do that most effectively when I meet her next week.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will try to come back to Pam Duncan-Glancy. I want to make progress, but I also want to ensure that colleagues have the opportunity to have their say.

I will not repeat all the points that I set out in my statement last week, but I want to be clear from the outset that the Government remains absolutely open and willing to do everything necessary to improve the services that women and babies use across Scotland. I have been very clear with NHS Lothian about the urgent improvements that I expect to see before the end of this year, and the First Minister reiterated the importance of boards responding timeously to any concerns that were raised about maternity services when we met NHS chief executives last week.

Members will be aware that I intend to convene a meeting with NHS Lothian’s chief executive and MSPs from across the chamber so that they can ask directly any questions that they might have. I hope that we can use the debate to agree the need for members of all parties—the Government included—to work collaboratively together to bring about the improvements that we all want to see.

The Government’s amendment, in my name, is intended to set out clearly that we are open to a wider national review of maternity services. However, a series of local inspections of every maternity unit in Scotland is already under way. It is right that those inspections should continue at pace so that we can make immediate improvements, instead of initiating a review in place of those, which would be potentially lengthy and require us to wait for the findings to identify where changes can be made.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

A national investigation would not be in place of the work that is going on—it would go alongside that and would recognise that this issue does not just affect one hospital or one maternity service but is a Scotland-wide problem.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I recognise the point that Jackie Baillie makes. I believe that the HIS inspection regime allows us to get into greater detail at local levels and allows us to consider those reports through the task force. Should that task force recommend a national review, I would be more than happy to accede to that request.

The action that we are taking is robust. It ensures that there can be an immediate, live response to those concerns, and we can see the improvement as the challenges are unearthed through Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I understand the cabinet secretary’s point, which is that he wants immediate action. However, in his statement last week, he set out a series of investigations and HIS reports that have been conducted over many years, yet we still had that “Disclosure” documentary and that devastating impact. He must surely recognise that the current system of investigation is just not enough on its own.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I disagree. Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspections have only begun this year to uncover the challenges that we have seen in Tayside and in Lothian. They have come as a result of the previous neonatal investigations, and the Government accepted the need for that acute maternity inspection process. That is what HIS is currently embarked on. We expect a significant number of additional inspections to take place before March—eight, I believe—which will give us good coverage across the country and a full picture of the situation. I very much understand the situation that Jackie Baillie and Willie Rennie outline, but the HIS report regime will give us that full picture.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

My colleague Marie Tidball MP has started a campaign about the experience of disabled people during maternity on the back of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine report finding that disabled women are 44 per cent more likely to have a stillbirth than non-disabled women. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that any investigation that takes place will be inclusive of all women, including disabled women?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It absolutely has to be, of course; there is no equivocation on that.

The new Scottish maternity and neonatal task force, which I announced last week, will review the findings of the HIS inspections. Two of those inspections have already taken place in Tayside and Lothian; they are complete and reported. HIS has committed to performing eight NHS acute maternity inspections by March 2026. Following the review of the findings and recommendations of those inspections, if the task force recommends a wider national review, I confirm to the Parliament that the Government will take that forward, giving full consideration to staff and patient welfare. I hope that that makes it clear to members that the Government is not shutting down the prospect of a review, but that the processes that are already under way should conclude in the first instance.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not know how much time I have left.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We have used up all the time in hand. I expect to extend the debate a little, given the nature of the discussions, but, as I say, we are over time.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

If Mr Kerr could be pithy, I will take the intervention.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will be very pithy. Despite what the cabinet secretary says, I cannot see how, without a national inquiry, we can get to the issues of culture that he spoke so strongly about last week. It is one thing to make pronouncements but another to bring change about. Without a national inquiry and a set of recommendations to do just that, how do we proceed?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already said that, should the HIS inspections that we are getting before March, and the task force, recommend that course, that is what I will do. I believe that that culture has been exposed in the HIS inspections; we saw that that was central to the criticism in the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh report.

I will not tolerate that—I expect to see improvements in the culture, and we are seeing management improvements and changes as a result. That is why I have confidence in the situation that is being developed through the HIS inspections. If that changes in any way, I am open to what Stephen Kerr suggests.

With regard to Mr Rennie’s amendment, as I said in my statement last week, I expect the task force to look at rural maternity services as one of its first areas of focus. Members will be aware that NHS Highland instigated a review of services in Caithness in 2016, following the death of a full-term baby in Caithness general hospital. NHS Highland’s review incorporated the findings from two external reviews and recommended the move to the current model of maternity care that is operating in Caithness.

That being said, I am sympathetic to the concerns that are raised in the Liberal Democrat amendment, and the concerns that my colleagues Maree Todd and Emma Roddick have raised in—

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will need to conclude—my apologies to Mr Cole-Hamilton.

My colleagues Maree Todd and Emma Roddick have raised their own concerns about the views of women in Caithness; that is why the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health met local campaigners in the summer. I am happy to confirm that I will ask the task force to review specifically the issues in Caithness and in other rural communities, including Stranraer, and that is why the Government will support the amendment from Willie Rennie today.

We recognise that we must maintain focus on timely and continuous improvement to ensure that mothers and their babies can receive the best possible care. That is why, in Scotland, we have chosen to act now, rather than wait on a lengthy review process.

I turn back to my amendment. Healthcare Improvement Scotland took the decision to commence inspections of maternity services in Scotland following recommendations from the neonatal mortality review. That decision was fully supported by the Government. Following the NHS Tayside and NHS Lothian inspections, three further inspections have now taken place, and the reports will be published in due course.

Healthcare Improvement Scotland has confirmed that it will complete its inspection programme of the remaining 10 obstetric maternity units from April 2026. Once all 18 acute obstetric maternity inspections are complete, HIS will carry out a thematic assessment and analysis and publish an overview report. That will support national learning and build on our continuous improvement over the coming months.

The programme of independent, unannounced inspections is working exactly as it was intended. The inspections have identified where improvements are needed and are holding services and boards to account. The inspections are intelligence led and identify issues on the ground to drive improvements in real time. Healthcare Improvement Scotland works with each board to address the requirements and recommendations, providing improvement support and robust follow-up findings. That process might include engagement with the board, the offer of coaching and mentoring, and support with quality improvement tools and resources. Approximately 18 weeks after the publication of the inspection report, the board is expected to submit a progress report to HIS and, at that point, HIS will determine whether any further follow-up action is required—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Healthcare Improvement Scotland will also use the themes that emerge from the findings in its inspections to identify and implement national improvements. Furthermore, we have commissioned HIS to develop national standards for maternity care. The standards are currently open for a public consultation, which closes on Friday. Those standards will be published early in 2026.

As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I note the comments last week from Jaki Lambert, the director of the RCM in Scotland, in response to the BBC’s “Disclosure” programme. She said:

“Many of the solutions are there in the recommendations of the Ministerial Nursing and Midwifery Taskforce”.

I assure members that the programme for implementing those recommendations is under way. There is a huge amount to do to implement the full range of actions for improvement, and for the full value of the changes to be taken account of throughout the process.

It is right that, as I have outlined today and last week, I assure the Parliament that the Government and I are committed to driving forward improvements across maternity services. I am keen to work collaboratively with colleagues across the chamber to do just that to bring about the improvements that are needed, and I remain open and willing to listen to the views of members on what more can be done.

I move amendment S6M-19512.3, to leave out from “, and calls” to end and insert:

“; agrees that a national investigation into the design and delivery of maternity services should take place if Scotland’s new Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce recommends it, and that it should give full consideration to staff and patient welfare; notes that the taskforce will review the findings of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspections into all maternity units in Scotland; recognises that no neonatal unit in Scotland is closing, and notes that the new model of neonatal intensive care in Scotland was recommended by the Best Start 2017 report, following robust clinical evidence on the safest and best possible model for the sickest babies.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I have alerted members, we have exhausted all our time and gone beyond the time that we had available. I am conscious of the business that we have scheduled for later this afternoon and this evening. Therefore, although I have been able to give the cabinet secretary some time back for the many interventions that he has taken, it will be difficult to sustain that through the remainder of the debate unless we are to run seriously over time, which I am keen to avoid if at all possible.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The debate focuses on one of the most sensitive and vital areas of healthcare: the safety of giving birth and the wellbeing of mothers and babies. The recent inspection report and the harrowing BBC exposé of maternity services are deeply troubling. They show staff shortages, exhausted clinicians and mothers who do not feel safe or heard. From the reactions that we are seeing, it is clear that, across the chamber, we all agree that the current situation is unacceptable. For any Government, that should be a wake-up call. The trouble is that the SNP Government is asleep at the wheel—and has been for years.

We fully agree that there must be a national investigation into the design and delivery of maternity services and neonatal services. The Royal College of Midwives has called for urgent action after the recent BBC investigation laid bare serious failings. Those are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a system that is under pressure and a tired Government that has lost control and run out of ideas. When clinicians sound the alarm, the Government must listen. Instead, the SNP Administration ploughs on with controversial plans to downgrade maternity hospitals against the clear wishes of local communities and staff.

Across Scotland, families and campaigners are rightly concerned. In Wishaw, an award-winning neonatal unit faces being downgraded. In Dundee, more than 17,000 people have signed a petition to save the neonatal unit at Ninewells. In Kirkcaldy and Ayrshire, staff and parents share the same fears that vital local services will be stripped away. Centralisation on that scale forces families in rural areas to travel hundreds of miles at the most frightening time in their lives. It separates mothers from newborns and tears parents away from their support networks. That is not progress; it is the abdication of responsibility.

We are told that the change is based on strong clinical advice, but I fear that the centralisation is being driven by workforce failure, not clinical excellence. The SNP Government cannot staff its existing services, which is why units are being downgraded. It is not because clinicians want it but because they are being forced to accept it. Let us be honest: SNP workforce planning is abysmal. We train talented midwives in Scotland, only for many of them to be unable to find jobs. Some are crossing the border to work in England because posts are not available. Morale among staff is at breaking point and now, instead of fixing the workforce crisis, ministers are redesigning services around their failure to recruit and retain. That is not reform; it is retreat and it is surrender.

That is why the Scottish Conservatives are calling on the Government to pause all downgrades of maternity and neonatal services until a full, independent task force has reported and its recommendations are known to the Parliament. No irreversible decisions should be made until we understand the consequences for safety, workforce and access, because once a local neonatal unit loses its intensive care status, it almost never comes back.

Centralisation may look tidy on a ministerial briefing paper, but it is mothers, babies and exhausted NHS staff who will live with the consequences. Even the SNP’s former health secretary, Jeane Freeman, has now admitted that the current crisis in the Scottish NHS is the result of failures of successive SNP Governments—including her own. She said that politicians focus on what needs to be done to

“remain in power, as opposed to what needs to be done to fix”

the NHS. Those words are not ours—they are hers.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The “The Best Start” report on which the plans for neonatal services across the country are based was clinician led and was prepared in consultation with and is supported by the charity Bliss. Does he recognise that that is an endorsement?

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Wow. We do not have enough staff under the current resources, we have a toxic culture, and we have had a terrible report and a BBC exposé. That is the why clinicians have been forced to accept the plans. If we had enough staff, I do not think that that would be the case.

Jeane Freeman’s words confirm what clinicians have been saying for years, which is that the Scottish Government’s short-term political approach has left our health service without the long-term strategy that it desperately needs.

That neglect is not confined to maternity care. Across Scotland, one in six people is now on a waiting list. General practitioner access has worsened year after year, following the SNP’s failure to deliver on promises made in the GP contract. Staff are leaving faster than they can be replaced. The Government boasts about record budgets, yet services are being cut, centralised or rationed. The public see through it. They see a Government that cannot match its rhetoric with results.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that every woman should have a choice—a choice to give birth where she feels safest, whether that is at home, in a community midwife unit or in a properly supported local hospital. We believe in care that is personal, safe and as close to home as possible. We believe in listening to the professionals—the midwives, neonatal nurses and obstetricians—whose experience should shape services rather than be overridden by civil servants and political spin.

That means fixing workforce planning, ensuring that every graduate we train has a post in Scotland and supporting staff with the training and flexibility that they need; it means valuing local hospitals, not undermining them; and it means designing services for patients and not promoting election stunts such as the GP walk-in centres—that initiative was proved to be a stunt by the fact that the First Minister, in writing, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, in the earlier question session, were unable to answer basic questions about the walk-in centres. The cabinet secretary says that work is taking place on that, so why not give us the basic information? Such stunts are not real solutions to the serious problems that we face.

This debate is not about ideology; it is about humanity. It is about mothers who deserve reassurance, not risk. It is about clinicians who want to deliver safe care but are stretched beyond their limits. It is about the babies whose first moment should not be defined by postcode or political mismanagement.

The Labour motion before us is sensible and proportionate. It calls for an investigation that really should already have been under way. Tonight, we will support it. Our amendment is also sensible and proportionate, not least because of the dire nature of the report by the BBC’s “Disclosure” programme.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I wish that I could, but I have no time left.

The amendments give Parliament time to pause and think. If the Government does not heed our advice, the cabinet secretary will be responsible for any future risk to mothers and babies.

I move amendment S6M-19512.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises that a comprehensive NHS workforce plan is required for doctors, nurses and midwives to address staffing shortages, and that women in rural areas in particular are facing difficult journeys to access maternity services; urges the Scottish Government to swiftly make improvements to maternity services across Scotland and ensure that the recommendations and requirements issued by Healthcare Improvement Scotland following maternity service inspections are fully implemented, and calls on the Scottish Government to pause its plans to downgrade neonatal intensive care units until the national investigation has concluded and the Scottish Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce has reported on it.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is important to begin by recognising that the vast majority of births in Scottish hospitals are managed successfully, and that the mothers and children leave those hospitals safely. We should also thank the thousands of staff who work on those units across the country, because they do a spectacular job in really difficult circumstances.

What we are talking about today is what we do when things go wrong—and things have gone wrong on far too many occasions.

Olivia was stillborn in Ninewells hospital, just over five years ago. Twenty-four hours later, Jacqui, her mother, was gone as well. Members will have witnessed the testimony of her husband, Lori, who is in the gallery today. He uncharacteristically broke down in that documentary. It was quite a rare breakdown for him, because he is an astonishing champion. He is somebody who has fought almost every single day since then to get answers not just for him and his family, who are also here today, but for families across the country, and for the good staff who work in hospitals, who deserve support. He has been determined to get answers ever since that day, in May 2020. He showed that determination in our meeting with the cabinet secretary today, and I think that the cabinet secretary will agree that he did not hold back. He was very straight about the fact that we want a national investigation into the reasons for the number of failings that have been identified.

The case involving Jacqui concerned a drug overdose that was administered, which we believe led to an amniotic fluid embolism. There is a debate about that, but there are wider issues that are really significant. In the event that we held earlier today with other families, it was quite clear that themes were developing involving different health boards in various parts of the country.

The duty of candour is at the centre of this. I know that Stephen Kerr has done a lot of work in that area. In this particular case, there was no adequate recording of the overdose, yet there was no penalty at the end of the process for that failure. We have a situation in which people are perhaps incentivised not to declare because of the fear of admitting that they have got something wrong, but, equally, there are no consequences for their failure to record.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Mr Rennie agree that, when, as I have been told, we have multiple instances of only two midwives being on when there should be seven, they simply do not have the time to do the job that they really want to do?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that that is true. NHS Lothian has a complement of about 450 midwives, so if 70 midwives had to be brought in, that shows a massive shortfall in the number of staff. Sandesh Gulhane is right, but we should not let the issues of resources and staff hide the fact that there are some issues of culture at the centre of this, which we need to dig into. Even if we had the fullest complement of staff, we might still have issues with the culture of candour, recording and the consequences of failing to record. In Jacqui’s case, that failure of candour led to the failure to allow her agency over her own life and decisions.

The second point that a national investigation, which I think should happen, should consider is the failure to follow standards and guidelines—in this case, because they were considered too long to read. Why on earth would that ever be a barrier? If they are too long to read, we should have guidelines that are succinct and to the point and which can be applied.

The other more difficult point—this is difficult for us, because we are talking about NHS staff, who we admire greatly—is about the cover that some professionals provide for other professionals in times of stress and investigation. I sometimes worry that it is felt that the greater good requires that that individual remains in their post but, when there is an investigation, we must have a situation in which everybody is open and the NHS professionals do not feel that they need to cover for one other. I do not know how often that happens—

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

[Made a request to intervene.]

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I am short for time.

I do not know how often that happens, but if it happened in the number of cases that I have heard about, it is far too often.

The number of stillbirths in Scotland has dropped quite significantly, but it has plateaued in the past few years. We have not made further progress on the reduction, and we do not have a target like there is in England. We should be aiming to have a target.

My final point to the cabinet secretary is that I can understand the pragmatic way in which he is going about this. He believes that the task force is the best way to proceed, but I think that the issues are bigger. We need somebody with authority from outside the system—crudely—to rattle the cage and to make the necessary changes. I do not think that a task force with representatives from inside the current system will be enough to address all the issues that I have highlighted this afternoon.

The one thing that is for sure is that, for the families who are in the gallery today, we must do everything that we can to make changes so that we reduce the possibility of this ever happening again.

I move amendment S6M-19512.1, to insert at end:

“; notes that, following the downgrading of the consultant-led maternity unit at Caithness General Hospital in 2016, women in Caithness can face a 100 mile trip down the A9 to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness to give birth, and calls on the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of maternity services in Caithness.”

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Every member who has spoken so far has talked about the profound impact on individuals and families who have been failed by the system, and I think that we can all recognise the seriousness of that. I acknowledge Willie Rennie’s comments at the start of his speech about the recognition that we owe to the incredibly dedicated and hard-working staff, who are doing their best. We must also provide reassurance, which Willie Rennie also spoke about, that, in the large majority of cases, services are safe and are being provided to a standard that people can have confidence in. We all have a responsibility not to exacerbate fears but to respond legitimately to failings when they have happened.

Because these issues are so profound, they go beyond party politics. I welcome Jackie Baillie’s motion and the tone with which she presented it. She did not give in to the temptation to make repeated comments about “this SNP Government” or such a thing as “SNP workforce planning”—I am not sure what that even means.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention, so that I can explain?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will make some progress. The motion was presented in a way that reflected that the issue goes beyond party politics and that it should do.

What we have seen and been informed about over the recent period goes beyond what was in just one documentary. Some of the issues that we have heard about in recent weeks go back years. A whistleblower investigation in 2024, which informed the recent BBC documentary, talked about mothers and newborn babies coming to harm because of staff shortages and a toxic culture at Edinburgh’s maternity unit. The whistleblowing report found that patient safety was being compromised by a series of factors, including staff shortages, which led to delays. It said:

“There is no dispute that there have been safety concerns, near misses and actual adverse outcomes for women and babies.”

It talked about a toxic working environment as well.

Before then, a survey of RCM members across Scotland had exposed the scale of the challenges that professionals face every day. There are too few staff, a poor skills mix, inadequate equipment, substandard environments and no time to learn and develop. In 2023, the RCM’s “state of maternity services” report detailed how rising intervention rates, increasing complexity and growing policy and regulatory demands required a larger, more skilled workforce.

Many of these issues go back a significant time and are not news to those who have been working in the system for a long time, but the recent inspection reports have highlighted continued issues with staff shortages, inconsistent training and inequality between regions. All of that leads us to the question that is posed by the Labour motion: does the situation require a national investigation in addition to the steps that were announced last week?

I welcome the steps that were announced by the cabinet secretary last week in relation to the Scottish maternity and neonatal task force. We should recognise the importance of the clinical advice and expertise that will be brought into that, as well as the escalation of the support and intervention framework in NHS Lothian. Those must be seen as first steps.

The question is whether a national investigation needs to proceed alongside that task force, be part of its work or be framed by it. I was interested in the point that Stephen Kerr made when he talked about the emphasis of an investigation into culture. Both investigations would be legitimate, but that is different from an

“investigation into the design and delivery of maternity and neonatal services”,

which is suggested in the Labour motion. Different but equally valid issues are being raised.

The cabinet secretary said—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that he would be “more than happy” for a national investigation to take place if its scope and nature were determined and informed by experts.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I think that I have time for one intervention.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Lothian MSPs—including your colleague Lorna Slater—received a briefing in September that spoke of training on culture that was provided to NHS Lothian staff in May 2025. However, in June, when the HIS inspection took place, we heard that nothing had changed. How can we, as elected members, have any confidence that we are not being taken for fools by some of these people?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I spoke briefly about the Lothian situation, but I have now moved on to discussing the call for a national investigation.

What I need to hear from the Scottish Government—and what it needs to be clear about when it asks the chamber to vote for its amendment—is its intention in framing a national investigation. Yes, there is a legitimate question about its scope—whether it covers maternity services as well as neonatal services or whether it focuses on maternity services—but there are also questions about how the clinical advice that is being sought by Government informs the decision about how a national investigation would take place. Fundamentally, that is what I want to hear about from the Government, including from the minister, who will chair the task force. In chairing that task force and taking forward that discussion, will her role be to define how that national investigation takes place, or will she be asking whether it should take place?

I need to hear, in the Government’s closing speech, a very clear steer that it will be asking how the national investigation will take place, not whether it will take place.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

As we learned from the recent BBC “Disclosure” documentary, maternity and neonatal services in Scotland are lacking sufficient resources to meet the needs of families. I often hear from constituents that, once they are in the care of the NHS, they are blown away by the professionalism, dedication and passion that staff show. However, “Disclosure” highlighted cases in which women could not access the special care that they needed, whether it was women having to give birth in a four-person ward room or the utterly heartbreaking stories of women and babies dying partly because nursing and midwifery staff are not present in sufficient numbers, especially at night and at weekends. I will not be the first person to tell the Scottish Government that, like time and tide, babies wait for no man and do not appear just during working hours.

All of that leads to the planned downgrade of Wishaw general hospital’s award-winning neonatal unit, as part of the reorganisation of nine specialist neonatal and maternity units, which will be replaced by three specialist units in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I am not belittling the need for a specialist neonatal unit in Aberdeen, as there is a need for something in the north-east and in the Highlands and Islands, but recent data showed that Wishaw’s neonatal unit had the third-highest number of neonatal admissions, ahead of Aberdeen, and the second-highest cumulative number of days that babies spent on a respirator.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I want to provide reassurance to David Russell’s constituents, my constituents and other members’ constituents across the country that the design of the services has been recommended under clinical advice. That advice has been absolutely clear. Those involved were supported by Bliss, which is a UK-wide recognised charity for such matters. It is critically important that we are clear that this measure is about saving the lives of the sickest of babies and those who require the greatest intervention. That is why we are going through this process.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you back the time for the intervention, Mr Russell.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Given that the recommendation in the “Best Start” report calls for between three and five units, it is a disgrace that the Scottish Government has chosen this way forward and opted for three. It could have included Wishaw, to serve the families in the south-west, along with Ninewells hospital in Dundee, which would have served Fife and Perthshire, with a review after a period in order to evaluate the situation. That would have been a commonsense approach rather than the severe approach of downgrading from nine units to three. That irresponsible and cavalier approach is gambling with babies’ lives.

The other problem is the metric that is used to determine where and how many specialist neonatal units are needed, which is to count the number of babies born before 27 weeks. Most babies born prior to 27 weeks come from emergencies and it is often unsafe to move a mum and baby, so they need to remain in whatever hospital they are already at. That can skew the results towards city centres, and it ignores the difficulty in moving fragile newborns and will result in more of what we have seen in “Disclosure”.

It is shocking that the Scottish Government chose to go with three units instead of a minimum of five, which would have at least kept things within the recommendations of the report.

We must consider as inevitable the underresourcing of specialist neonatal units, because underresourcing has happened everywhere else in NHS Scotland. It is also inevitable that my constituents and many others will need to be transferred to Aberdeen, because that is where the spare capacity will be. That is a journey of 150 miles and at least three hours for mum and baby, and it is a 300-mile round trip for other family members. Despite the fact that 80 per cent of the population live in or adjacent to the central belt, the meagre ration of £8.50 per person per day for food and travel is not going to cut it. Neither is the contribution towards reasonable accommodation for a stay of weeks within the vicinity of the neonatal intensive care unit.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?