Scottish Parliament, 21 January 2026

254 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Points of Order

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yesterday, the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, refused to suspend standing orders to allow me to lodge an urgent question on the document that the Scottish Government produced in its case against For Women Scotland to allow it to continue to house male prisoners in the female prison estate. In response, Alison Johnstone told me that she would not suspend standing orders yesterday because there would be further opportunities this week to try to question ministers.

To me, it was very clear that one of those options was an urgent question that was submitted on time, which I did first thing this morning. The question that I wanted to ask was whether the Scottish Government would update Parliament on the written case for Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service’s policy for the management of transgender people in custody, including how many times women’s rights are mentioned.

I say this choosing my words very carefully. Disgracefully, the Presiding Officer has not accepted that urgent question.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, I ask you to resume your seat for a second.

I understand the strength of feeling that there is around the decision, but I urge you, Mr Ross, not to challenge the chair. You can resume your point of order.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Presiding Officer, in making her decision, asked officials to tell me this:

“The question is not sufficiently urgent to meet the criteria for an urgent question today”.

What is more urgent than the Government saying that male prisoners should be in the female prison estate or the bizarre arguments that it published yesterday? Surely, that is urgent enough to hear from ministers about today.

Again, I thought very carefully about how I phrase this: it just looks like we have a Presiding Officer who is shielding Scottish National Party ministers and preventing them from being brought to the chamber to answer questions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, please resume your seat.

You may have thought very carefully about the words that you would use, but I think that you have gone ahead and still used them in ways that go beyond challenging the chair. You have made your point. I urge you to be sensible in the language that you use. You can resume your point of order.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I would be sensible in the language that I choose to use if we had sensible rulings from the Presiding Officer. It is a nonsensical ruling for the Presiding Officer to make.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, resume your seat.

You have made your point, which is not a point of order. As you know well, the selection of urgent questions is up to the Presiding Officer. As has been intimated to you, there will be opportunities during the course of this week for you to make those points. I understand that you were encouraged to press your button during First Minister’s questions tomorrow. On that basis, there is not more that I can add to what you have already been told.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. If the argument is that I can ask one question to the First Minister, who repeatedly refused to answer questions from his own back benchers and from Labour and Conservative MSPs last week at FMQs, why not have the urgent question, so that multiple questions on the same subject can be put over a 10-to-20-minute period? Now, we are going to get maybe 30 seconds to question the First Minister tomorrow, when ministers should be put under the cosh on this. They should be challenged, repeatedly, by MSPs across the chamber. That is what our urgent questions are for, and this is not allowing it. I think that that is a disgrace.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, that is not a point of order. I have responded to the substantive point that you made.

It is now time to start portfolio question time.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I believe that this is an important matter. I am sure that you agree that we want the Scottish Parliament to be a welcoming place for our guests and visitors. However, earlier today, a guest of mine was asked to remove his Doddie Weir lanyard and snood, neither of which included large campaign messages. The core policy explicitly states that

“Banners, flags and political slogans are forbidden”,

and that that includes clothing that displays large or overly political branding or campaign messages. You can see that the Doddie Weir lanyard that I am wearing has no political messaging.

Presiding Officer, can you advise whether your office has changed the visitor policy without our knowing? Will you personally undertake to investigate this affront to a guest who had absolutely no political branding on his being?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am not aware of the circumstances of the case that you have raised, Ms Hamilton. For clarity, the policy is a Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body one, but I am concerned to hear what you have described. I will ensure that it is looked into and that a response is provided to you and to members, who I am sure will have an interest in that.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I realise that people want to carry on with rural questions, and please believe that I want to do that, too, as the points that will be raised are critically important. However, I cannot help but rise to speak at this point.

Rule 13.7 of the standing orders deals with portfolio questions, the item that we are just coming to. My understanding is that, by convention, when members enter their names into the ballot to be picked to ask a question, they will submit a question. However, today, three SNP members have decided not to lodge their question. There are rows of people on the benches behind me who want to ask a rural question, so I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer. Will you ensure that those of us in the chamber who want to ask a rural question will get selected today, rather than members of the SNP who have not lodged questions?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I and the Presiding Officer have made clear in the past, when members are picked out of the ballot to ask a question, they should make sure that they are available to do so. I think that it is disappointing to see in the Business Bulletin that a number of questions have not been lodged. I simply reinforce the message that the Presiding Officer has previously put out. She has spoken to the Minister for Parliamentary Business about these specific cases, but all that I can do is emphasise the importance of members taking care, when putting their names into the ballot, to ensure that they will be available to ask questions.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That brings us to questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Question 1 was not lodged.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what cross-Government action it is taking to support island connectivity in the West Scotland region. (S6O-05388)

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

The published strategies, such as the strategic transport projects review 2, the national islands plan and the island connectivity plan, outline our commitment to maintain and enhance connectivity across Scotland. Those strategies include on-going and proposed investments in ferries, roads, railways and other infrastructure across the west of Scotland.

Recent and on-going investments include works at the Cumbrae slipway and the procurement of new vessels such as the MV Glen Sannox. Wider committed vessels projects will see one third of the Clyde and Hebrides fleet renewed in the coming years.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

The minister knows well the frustrations and anger of local communities on Cumbrae and Arran and in the mainland ports because of ferry routes to Largs, Ardrossan and Troon being delayed. There is a fiasco in our ferries—I think that we all know that.

What will the minister do to rebuild the faith of those communities? It will require the physical upgrading of infrastructure, which he has referred to, which has been for too long neglected. That is what will demonstrate a long-term commitment to connecting our islands.

On the Cumbrae slipway, can the Government say what is being done to make sure that it progresses on time and on budget, with minimal disruption?

Regarding Arran, I note the First Minister’s comments that the acquisition of the harbour is at an advanced stage, but will the Government commit to ensure that any acquisition will come with an infrastructure investment plan to upgrade the harbour and reconnect Arran and Ardrossan?

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

The first point that Paul O’Kane put to me was about how we are going to rebuild trust. I accept the fact that there is a need to do that. However, since being re-elected in 2021, the Scottish Government has delivered the MV Glen Sannox into service; bought and deployed an additional vessel, the MV Loch Frisa; and extended the charter of the MV Alfred to provide additional resilience. In recent months, we have chartered the MV Arrow to provide cover and additional capacity on the northern isles ferry service route and Clyde and Hebrides ferry service route. Further, we have commissioned two new vessels for Islay, two new vessels for the Little Minch routes and seven new electric vessels for routes across the west coast.

We have started the procurement of two new freight vessels for the northern isles routes, serving Orkney and Shetland. We have progressed investment in the key ports and harbours, as has been mentioned. We have progressed considerations around the potential purchase of Ardrossan harbour. We have confirmed additional revenue funding of £270 million between 2018-19 and 2025-26 to support the operation of local authority ferry services. We have published the “Islands Connectivity Plan—Strategic Approach” and the long-term vessels and ports plan. We have introduced free travel to under-22 islanders on the interisland ferries in Orkney and Shetland and the outer Hebrides. We have extended the young persons concessionary travel scheme, which provides islanders with two free return journeys.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, minister.

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

The point that I am making is that we are doing an awful lot of work to try to rebuild that resilience, and the points that the member makes about the Cumbrae section can be picked up as a further consideration.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

CalMac’s original plan—to have a single vessel, the MV Alfred, service Arran while both the MV Caledonian Isles and the MV Glen Sannox are unavailable—was inadequate. Although the situation has improved since CalMac was forced to deploy the MV Isle of Arran, the return to service of the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Caledonian Isles has been delayed yet again. Will the minister press CalMac to ensure that the MV Isle of Arran stays on the route until Arran’s primary vessels return and have managed several consecutive days of reliably serving the people and communities of Arran?

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

I absolutely take on board the point made by Kenneth Gibson, who has been a fierce advocate for his communities in regard to ferries. It is very frustrating that the community of Arran is facing a further delay to the return of the MV Caledonian Isles and the MV Glen Sannox. Ministers and officials continue to engage with CalMac to ensure that all options to expedite the repairs are being considered. The MV Isle of Arran is expected to be redeployed to its original timetable on the Oban to Craignure service when repairs to the MV Alfred lifts are completed.

The redeployment of vessels is particularly challenging due to the annual overhaul schedule at this time of year, but CalMac is committed to ensuring that the lifeline services are maintained to our islands. I am glad to advise that Alfred’s current charter has been extended to the end of February and that it will remain on the Troon to Brodick route until the regular vessels resume service. This winter, we have also been able to support the funding to maintain the dedicated service on the secondary route to Arran via Lochranza.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will need shorter answers, even in the absence of lodged questions.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what consultation it has entered into with the Scottish Information Commissioner regarding the publication of the controlling interests of recipients of payments made under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-05389)

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

The Scottish Government consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the publication of data of recipients of payments made under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, as required by article 36(4) of the United Kingdom general data protection regulation—UK GDPR—at the time that the bill was introduced. The Scottish Government did not consult the Scottish Information Commissioner, as that office’s remit is limited to regulating compliance with freedom of information legislation for Scottish public authorities.

The Scottish Government has not yet consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding controlling interests, as that will be addressed later, when secondary legislation is being prepared for introduction under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

When I pressed the cabinet secretary to publish the ultimate recipients of farm payments, as legislated for by this Parliament under section 19 of the 2024 act, I was told in a letter:

“we must consult with the Information Commissioner before making any changes ... when we deal with controlling interests.”

I know that the Information Commissioner has been rather busy recently, but it feels like the Information Commissioner’s Office is being used as an excuse by the Government for delay after delay. When will that work be completed? The regulations came into force three weeks ago. When the data is published, will it disclose the names of all individuals, including all big landowners, and not simply list them as anonymous private applicants, as well as organisations and businesses? This is about public money, it is about transparency, it is about public interest, and it is about who pays and who gains.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We are going to need shorter questions as well.

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

There was quite a lot in there. On the fundamental point about transparency, I absolutely agree with Richard Leonard, which is why we agreed to the measures that were introduced as part of the 2024 act, but I think that we are speaking at cross-purposes slightly.

The Scottish statutory instrument that Richard Leonard referred to, which has just come into force, does not relate to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, to which his initial question referred. The SSI relates to our ability to continue to publish data under the retained payment schemes that we have at the moment, rather than being the new regulations that would be needed under new schemes under the 2024 act, if that makes sense.

I am happy to follow up directly with Richard Leonard, to set all that out clearly. I would not want him, or any member in the chamber, to think that I am, by any means, using the Information Commissioner’s Office as an excuse. As I said in the last part of my initial response, we have not yet consulted the ICO on those specific regulations, because they will be brought forward when we are using those other powers.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to ensure that future farm policy aligns with Scotland’s climate and biodiversity targets, in light of the concerns raised by environmental stakeholders regarding the agricultural reform process. (S6O-05390)

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

Reforms are already under way to align agriculture with climate and biodiversity targets while sustainably producing food. This year, we have increased the ecological focus areas, which means that more land is farmed in ways that benefit nature and climate.

We will continue to develop our agriculture policy in a way that works for climate, people and the rural economy, and, as reform advances, we will continue to engage with Scotland’s environmental sector. However, we can meet climate, nature and sustainable food production goals only if we have successful farming and crofting businesses, which is why we will continue to offer vital support through direct payments as we go forward.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

The First Minister has previously said:

“The Government is absolutely committed to maintaining an approach to agriculture that focuses on supporting the agriculture sector, supporting the measures to tackle the nature crisis that we face and implementing measures on climate change.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2025; c 26.]

How does the minister propose to deliver on that now, given that leading environmental organisations have lost confidence in the process?

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

The fact that members of the agriculture reform implementation oversight board have left, which is the situation to which Gillian Mackay is referring, is a decision for them. I think that it was the wrong decision, a regrettable decision and one that they will regret themselves.

However, that does not alter the fact that the Government is maintaining direct support in order to maintain rural communities. Without those strong rural communities, we cannot deliver on the biodiversity and nature promises that we are seeking to deliver, so we will continue with that process.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is a lot of interest in supplementaries. I will try to get everybody in, but the questions will need to be short, as will the responses. If they are not, I will cut across them.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

There is near-universal consensus that things must, and will, change in agriculture. However, does the minister agree that, if we want an agricultural sector that can do the heavy lifting for climate and biodiversity, we need to continue to support Scotland’s agricultural producers to do exactly that—to produce?

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

I completely agree with that. In the interests of time, I will cut my answer down. Any changes that we make will be developed in partnership. We will work with the agriculture sector to ensure that the support that we give meets its needs and also fulfils our desire to ensure that we have biodiversity and climate change in hand.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The update on the future farming investment scheme, which the Government sneaked out on the very last day before recess, still leaves farmers in the dark on why their applications were deemed ineligible or unsuccessful. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence was not used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based programme was used. Could applications be deemed ineligible and therefore not progress to the formal assessment stage without any human assessment whatsoever?

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

The member is now talking about the FFIS, which is kind of going off topic, and an awful lot of such questions will be answered in the debate that we will have tomorrow. However, if the question is about whether the assessment process used more machinery and AI than human involvement, the answer is no, it did not.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Vast amounts of money awarded under the future farming investment scheme have been hoovered up by large agricultural landowners and mega farms—the kind of wealthy farms that can afford to use deer fencing, leaving smaller, less wealthy farms that cannot afford it even more vulnerable to deer overgrazing.

Given that two aims of the future farm policy are improving business efficiency and sustainability and protecting and restoring the natural environment, will the minister assure us that priority under the scheme will be given to farmers—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Minister.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

—who engage in sustainable deer management solutions?

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

Again, we are back to the FFIS. I need to point out that £21.5 million of extra funding was invested in rural Scotland by putting that scheme in place. I also point out that, as I have stated in the chamber, including in response to Ariane Burgess, I am absolutely committed to small producers, who are a vital part of the rural economy working in Scotland. We have the small producers pilot fund and we are determined to do more for small producers as we go forward.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, Willie Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the minister agree that this is not an either/or situation and that people who seek to divide environmental groups and the farming sector are doing a disservice? We should be working together. We cannot do this without farmers. There is no way that we will deal with our biodiversity and climate change obligations unless we work together. What efforts is he making to get those environmental stakeholders back on board?

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

I absolutely applaud Willie Rennie’s good sense in taking some of the heat and division out of these debates. It is absolutely correct that there should not be a divide between our climate change and biodiversity targets and producing food in Scotland. I applaud Willie Rennie’s intervention, because that is what we, as a Government, are trying to do.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, Finlay Carson.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

How can the minister expect farmers to invest in new biodiversity or emission-reducing measures without clear, long-term, fully funded commitments? Does he accept that, without adequate funding, even the most willing farmer will struggle to meet the targets? Will he ensure that no farmer is left worse off as a result of policy changes?

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

We have delivered direct support. We have delivered the Scottish upland sheep support scheme and the calf scheme. We have made sure that the less favoured areas support scheme is still in place. We have given those commitments. We have said right from the start that there will be no cliff edges or big-bang moments. We are doing that at pace, with the farming community on board, and we are delivering incremental changes that they can get on board with. We have carried out exactly the right kind of policy, in stark contrast with the scheme that the Conservatives started in Westminster and the Labour Party has continued with. We are doing it right in Scotland. Other places are getting it very wrong.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 5 was not lodged.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have a livestock farm in Moray.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on farmers and crofters of any reintroduction of lynx into Scotland. (S6O-05392)

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

I absolutely understand that there are concerns in light of the recent public engagement and media attention about proposals to reintroduce lynx in Scotland. Any proposed reintroduction would require a significant amount of consultation and evidence to assess the associated risks and benefits before a licence would be considered.

Neither the Scottish Government nor NatureScot have carried out a formal assessment of any potential impact that lynx would have on rural communities and livestock in Scotland at present. For clarity, our position remains the same: we have no plans to reintroduce lynx in Scotland.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister rightly says, the majority of farmers in Scotland would like the Government to abide by its policy not to reintroduce lynx in Scotland. Has the minister had any discussion with farmers about the likely costs in relation to the loss of livestock, including pedigree livestock, should lynx be reintroduced and start killing them?

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

I admit that I have not had any such conversations, because it is not in our plans. We do not plan to reintroduce lynx, so I have not needed to have those conversations.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Again, we have a number of supplementaries, so they will need to be brief.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Lynx would help to naturally control excessive deer populations—something that Scotland is in dire need of. Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland all successfully reintroduced lynx decades ago and reaped the ecological benefits. Why does the minister believe that it cannot work here?

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

We recognise the role that reintroductions of native species can play in nature restoration. As I have just said, a proposed reintroduction would require serious and significant consultation. NatureScot currently chairs the national species reintroduction forum, which is made up of a range of organisations from conservation, land use, public and non-governmental organisation sectors. If NatureScot were to receive any form of proposal for lynx reintroduction, it would be put through the NSRF for thorough discussion and consideration. We do not intend to reintroduce lynx or any large carnivores in the foreseeable future, because of the potential for negative impacts on farms and rural communities.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Given the focus on the potential impacts on farmers and crofters, and the fact that, under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the draft climate change plan, the Scottish Government requires a transition towards sustainable and regenerative agriculture—including making space for nature on farms and crofts—has the Government carried out any assessments of the potential benefits of restoring lynx to Scotland. If not, why not?

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

As I stated in my previous answer, there would have to be a process and a thorough investigation into what would need to be done. As yet, I have not considered any of the points that Ariane Burgess has just put to me.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Although I recognise the concerns around any possible reintroduction of lynx, will the minister please acknowledge the significant and on-going impacts that sea eagles are already having on farmers and crofters on the west coast of Scotland, in relation to which there has been much discussion but no action?

I applaud the minister for not considering the reintroduction of lynx without the clear consent of affected communities, but when will the Government set out what it will do to address the current concerns on the west coast? The lambing season is right around the corner.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That question is not related to lynx, but the minister can make any additional comments.

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

Tim Eagle is talking rubbish, because he said that we have not done anything.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Tell that to the west coast farmers.

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

Last year, we added an extra £500,000 to the sea eagle management scheme, and we will continue to monitor that. I established the wildlife and land management forum, and discussions are on-going about how we manage the issue.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

They have done nothing.

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

To go back to Ariane Burgess’s point, we need to make space for nature and for people to farm, so we are trying to find the balance for both. [ Interruption .] That is why we put the extra £500,000 into the sea eagle management scheme last year, and it is why we are committed to making sure that we work with the sector.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I would be obliged if members, particularly Mr Eagle and Mr Carson, whom I have allowed to ask supplementaries, would not shout from a sedentary position.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the consultation on combinable crops will deliver for Scotland’s arable farmers. (S6O-05393)

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

I thank Paul McLennan for the question, because it is important.

Our arable producers face significant challenges, including volatile markets and extreme weather conditions. From conversations with stakeholders, I understand that the sector has a long-term concern regarding the supply chain. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out a supply chain fairness review into the combinable crops sector, with a consultation open until 4 February.

My officials have been closely involved in the consultation process and will collaborate in the development of any resulting policy measures, ensuring that the views of Scottish stakeholders are explored and understood as part of the wider consideration of whether any interventions need to be developed.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

East Lothian produces excellent grain, but, as the minister said, the sector has faced issues in relation to one of the hardest harvests in years. After a dry spring and summer, growers—especially malting barley producers—face huge pressures. Growers are being left to carry the can for decisions that are made beyond their control, whether in relation to vague contract wording, inconsistent testing standards or an unwillingness to share risk.

What can the Scottish Government do to reinforce the need for joined-up thinking and shared responsibility at every level of the supply chain?

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

Paul McLennan is well aware that supply chain fairness is a reserved matter, but we are working hard to ensure that Scottish industry concerns are taken into account in the current consultation on fairness in the combinable crops sector. If the consultation responses suggest that interventions are necessary, we will collaborate in the development of that policy response, ensuring that it meets the needs of Scottish stakeholders, such as our malting barley producers. Where we have the powers to do so, we are doing all that we can to protect and support that iconic sector.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On that point, there is a long-standing concern that contracts for malting barley, which is an important combinable crop in the UK, are extremely volatile. Rising whisky costs and a fall in demand mean that it has been hard for those arable farmers to secure contracts ahead of this year’s harvest. What discussions precisely has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government to support those arable farmers and to find new markets for whisky?

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

Liam Kerr makes a very good point. Given the current global disruption, I applaud the First Minister’s efforts to ensure that tariffs are reduced in America, because that is exactly where malting barley products go. As I have said, we are part of the conversations that the UK Government is having on supply chain fairness, and that work is on-going. We will continue to represent the industry as much as we can.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 8 was not lodged.

That concludes portfolio question time on rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my efforts to accommodate your request for brevity, I neglected to draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Halcro Johnston. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members that questions 3 and 5 have been grouped together, so I will take any supplementary questions after both substantive questions have been responded to. I advise members that there is considerable interest in asking supplementary questions. I will try to get in as many as possible, but that will require co-operation from members regarding the brevity of questions and responses.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what urgent action is being taken to improve whole-system patient flow, including seven-day discharge services, social care capacity and shared responsibility across hospital departments, rather than focusing on redirecting patients away from accident and emergency departments. (S6O-05395)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Through the national health service operational improvement plan, we are supporting boards to reduce waiting times, improve hospital flow and minimise delayed discharges. The plan is backed by £220 million of targeted investment. To support resilience over the winter, we are also providing up to £20 million to fund increased social care and reduce pressure at hospital front doors.

All hospital departments have a part to play, as does the wider health and social care system, and they must work collaboratively to improve patient flow through the system, thereby ensuring that patients can receive the right care in the right place with no unnecessary delays to the patient journey.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The most recent data, which is from November, underlines the significant problem that we still have, as 37 per cent of patients who presented at A and E had to wait for more than four hours. That is unacceptable. In addition to social care capacity, there is a big push to improve the delayed discharge numbers, and there is also pressure to have seven-day discharge services. When will there be such services in every hospital and health board across Scotland?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That requires collaboration not just at the hospital level but also in social and community care. We have been working with the collaborative response and assurance group, which is co-chaired by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government, through me and Mr Arthur, to ensure that the standards that we expect to be met on a consistent and national basis are being met.

There is good practice in some areas, which have seven-day discharge, discharge before noon and work with front-door frailty services. The standards are there to ensure that there is a high level of application and consistency across the country so that we can get better flow through the system. That is happening in some areas, but I want it to happen everywhere.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Several members wish to ask supplementary questions. Again, I appeal for brevity.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members that I am a practising NHS nurse.

Mr Rennie referred to improving patient flow. Nowhere is that more evident than in the recent statistics that show that, under this Scottish National Party Scottish Government, waiting times are down for the sixth month in a row. How will the cabinet secretary work to build on that progress to ensure that people receive high-quality care on an appropriate timescale?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Clare Haughey is absolutely right. The latest planned care flow data shows that waits of over 52 weeks have fallen for a sixth month in a row, with a 29.4 per cent reduction in new out-patient waits and a 19.3 per cent reduction in in-patient and day-case waits since July. We are committed to maintaining that progress through the additional £137 million that has been invested in planned care this year and we are working closely with health board chief executives to ensure improvement.

As part of wider NHS reform, we are introducing a subnational planning approach to strengthen cross-boundary collaboration and help patients to access timely care. It is also important to reflect that 97 per cent of hospital discharges happen without delay.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The system can change effectively only if we reduce the queues at the front door, increase the head count or help the NHS to work more efficiently. I argue that we should go for all three options. However, none of the targets will be met without a revolution in the deployment of significant artificial intelligence and technology, starting with a fully interoperable universal tech platform for the whole of the NHS. When will the cabinet secretary deliver on that key element for future healthcare?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

To return to the point that Mr Rennie made, the NHS is not just redirecting patients from the front door. Suppressing demand by ensuring that people get the right care in the right place is important. However, the work that has been done on flow navigation is also important, as is the work that has been done by NHS 24 and the Scottish Ambulance Service to ensure that we call before we convey in order to reduce demand at the front door. We also have a record level of staffing in our NHS.

Mr Whittle and I have discussed innovation at length on several occasions. The Scottish Government is investing to bring forward increased innovation and adoption of technology in the health service, and increased investment in digital is part of the budget that has been put before the Parliament for the health and social care system.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I think that we would all acknowledge that social care is critical if we are to reduce waiting times at A and E. COSLA has calculated that there is a £15 million funding gap in meeting the cost of delivering the real living wage to adult social care workers. That appears to be because the Scottish Government has taken the baseline as £12.71 per hour rather than £12.60, which is the current level of pay. The shortfall will have a devastating impact on social care services. Will the minister clarify whether that was intentional? If it was not, will he move to correct the error?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree with Jackie Baillie’s first point about the importance of social care in ensuring that people receive the right care in the right place at the right time, and ensuring that there is proper flow through the system. That is why the collaborative response and assurance group, which involves COSLA, the Scottish Government and health and social care partnerships, is so important. We all have a part to play in making sure that the system works effectively.

It is important that employers honour their statutory responsibilities and obligations on pay. I have just left a meeting with Councillor Paul Kelly and COSLA in which we discussed that point. Discussions on the issue are on-going.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will introduce standards and regular public reporting on hospital discharges and the use of non-clinical spaces to deliver care. (S6O-05396)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We do not currently collect national data on the use of non-clinical spaces. Our focus right now is on addressing the underlying causes of the issue, such as high hospital occupancy and poor patient flow. We are driving improvements and we are working closely with local systems to ensure that plans are in place to cope with demand peaks. Through the NHS Scotland operational improvement plan, we are investing £220 million to reduce waiting times, improve hospital flow and minimise delayed discharges.

Regular public reporting on hospital discharges is undertaken and published by Public Health Scotland and can be found on its website.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s damning report on NHS Lothian; the horrific story in the Edinburgh Evening News this month about the young father who lost his life after waiting for 13 hours to be seen in accident and emergency; the Royal College of Emergency Medicine noting that, last year, there were around 720,000 days of unnecessary hospital stays in Scotland due to delayed discharges, which is nearly 2,000 years of lost bed capacity that could have helped to relieve exit block and corridor care; and the fact that the RCEM has been raising these issues for years, when is the Scottish Government going to fix this?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I express my heartfelt condolences to the family of Dylan Jones at this unimaginably difficult time. I also make it clear that it is not acceptable that Mr Jones waited so long in the accident and emergency department. I know that investigations are on-going in that regard.

As Ms Boyack will recognise, I have regular engagement with the Royal College of Nursing. I know that this is an area of focus for it and that it wants to see greater data reporting, and I am engaged in discussions about how that could happen practically. However, as I said, my first priority is to address the reasons why this is happening. That is an area of concern for me that goes across the entire system. As Ms Baillie’s question alluded, it requires all parts of the system pulling in the same direction.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On that point, will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government will continue to work with integration authorities and partners to support transparent reporting and improvement planning?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Audit Scotland’s report on delayed discharge, which was published in January, recommends that we strengthen national accountability and evidence via the establishment of a single evaluation framework for all delayed discharge initiatives. Furthermore, its report recommends that that be accompanied by an annual publication of outcomes, value for money and impact.

I welcome the report and I share the view that, despite the hard work that this Government has undertaken in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and partnerships, more must be done to ensure that people receive the care that they need in the right place at the right time. That is why I have asked the collaborative response and assurance group to come together to consider the report’s recommendations as a whole and to develop a partnership approach to addressing them.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I start by apologising to the chamber, as I will be leaving the session early. I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the latitude to do so, as it enables me to attend a briefing on the A9 by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the number of dental practices that are accepting new NHS patients, including how it will monitor the effectiveness of the November 2023 payment reforms in improving access for patients in rural and island communities. (S6O-05397)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We continue to offer a range of additional financial support for areas where access is particularly challenging, such as rural and island areas. The support includes grants of up to £100,000 for establishing new dental surgeries and allowances of up to £37,500 for new dentists practising in qualifying areas.

In reviewing the impact of reform, we recognised that its benefits have not yet been experienced equally, so we committed to reviewing and refreshing our financial incentives to support improved access for our most rural communities. We anticipate that revised incentives will be introduced in the 2026-27 financial year.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Despite the Scottish dental access initiative grants, areas such as Argyll and Bute, Orkney and Shetland remain, in effect, closed to new NHS patients. That is the case despite Government data suggesting that more than 95 per cent of the population are registered with an NHS dentist. That clearly does not represent the reality of accessing a dentist.

The situation requires investigation, so what steps will the Scottish Government take to address the problem? Will it consider providing a salaried public dental service to ensure that everyone has access to an NHS dentist?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There are public access dental facilities across NHS boards. In fact, I visited one in Coatbridge today, and I was really pleased to meet new dental students who are doing their vocational training with NHS Lanarkshire, in conjunction with the University of Glasgow. That is an important step forward.

Vocational training is also offered in areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, and we are having in-depth discussions with NHS Western Isles about the situation in that health board area.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting dental practices in island communities to provide sufficient levels of service to ensure that islanders can access the dental care that they are entitled to. (S6O-05399)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I intimated in my answer to Ms Grant, the Scottish Government continues to provide a number of financial incentives in qualifying areas to support access. We recognise that the improvements following the 2023 reforms, which have resulted in consistently high levels of dental treatment at a national level, have not been experienced equally across Scotland. That is why we are committed to better supporting rural and island communities through targeted financial incentives to increase local workforces and improve access.

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

I recently wrote to the Scottish Government about the serious challenges that dental patients face in the Western Isles, particularly in Uist. Recruitment is difficult, and the United Kingdom Government’s removal of certain dental roles from the skilled worker visa list has clearly made the situation worse. What recent engagement has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government and NHS Western Isles about reversing that decision and improving islanders’ access to dental services?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, am deeply concerned about the UK Government’s changes to the skilled worker visa list, which have resulted in key dental professions no longer qualifying for sponsorship. The changes will impact practices’ ability to recruit qualified staff and reduce access to dental care. Last year, I wrote to the UK Government to urge it to reconsider the changes, and I am very disappointed that my request has been refused.

As I said in response to Ms Grant, my officials are working closely with NHS Western Isles to improve patient access. I understand that it is recruiting new dentists to the area and is seeking locum provision in the interim, pending successful recruitment.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.

I have been told that no body currently holds end-to-end responsibility for practice-level governance of mixed NHS and private dental practices and that responsibility for addressing the issue sits with the Scottish Government. The lack of responsibility placed on any body raises clear concerns about patient safety and clinical accountability. That is particularly important in rural areas, where there are dental deserts, with a complete lack of choice. What is the minister doing to ensure that all mixed dental practices are appropriately regulated?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise that specific issue and I have asked my officials to look into it.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

We have seen residents of Bute having to travel by ferry to Paisley to access NHS dentists due to a lack of capacity on that island, and we have seen dental practices in Oban being unable to take on new patients due to staff shortages caused by a lack of housing. This is a holistic issue—it is about housing, transport and healthcare—and it is leading to a situation in which many people are unable to see an NHS dentist.

Does the Government agree that the lack of capacity is a systemic issue? Can salaried posts be created in such places? Will the minister engage with the royal colleges to offer a licensed dental surgery course for international practitioners to convert in Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Paul Sweeney mentioned my constituency in his question, and I recognise the issues. As someone who cares for all of Scotland and who wants to ensure that everyone in Scotland gets good access to dental services, I am really focused on them.

Through a number of areas in the draft Scottish budget, we have increased the dental spend to more than £500 million. It would be helpful if the member’s party would support that budget, to ensure that we can make that investment. We are also increasing the number of dental students in Scotland by 7 per cent this year, to ensure that we have that throughput and pipeline of dentists.

As I indicated in my response to Alasdair Allan, there are certain things that the Scottish Government relies on the UK Government to change. Therefore, you could perhaps use your influence with your colleagues at Westminster to improve visa access for dental therapists coming to Scotland and the exams that international dentists have to sit to allow them to practice in Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind the minister to always speak through the chair. I also ask for slightly more brevity in her responses so that we can get through the supplementary questions.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Government how the work of the recently announced ADHD and autism task force will affect integrated care for residents in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, and for people across Scotland. (S6O-05398)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The children and young people’s neurodevelopment task force was set up in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last autumn, following review of the implementation of the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people.

The specification sets out the standards that all services in Scotland should follow to ensure that children and young people receive the neurodevelopmental support that they need, when they need it. The task force is supporting work to deliver the improvements identified in the review to progress implementation of the specification throughout Scotland.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the work of the task force. However, many of my constituents and other young people are caught in a revolving-door situation whereby they are denied attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments until they are substance free, even if their substance use amounts to self-medication. Can the minister confirm that the task force will specifically address the dual-diagnosis barrier and ensure that addiction is never used as a reason to deny or delay an ADHD diagnosis?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Rona Mackay for her supplementary question and her on-going interest in the area. To respond directly to her points, although the task force’s focus is primarily on children and young people, and although significant substance-use difficulties are less common in that group, we recognise that there will be a small number for whom that aspect is relevant, including those with ADHD. In such situations, I recognise that clinicians must balance providing timely support with their responsibilities on safe prescribing and the limitations of assessment when active substance use is involved. However, we want every young person to be able to access the support that they need, when they need it, whether it be for neurodivergence issues, substance use issues or both.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a couple of supplementaries, as long as they are brief.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

In my south Scotland region, people in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran health board area are stuck waiting too long for ADHD and autistic spectrum disorder assessments. Although my constituents can often access support without the need for formal diagnosis, continued funding cuts for integration joint boards and the long-term decline of council budgets are placing all services under immense pressure. Does the minister recognise that such cuts only limit the amount of support that can be provided through local services? Does the Government have any plans to give people living with autism and ADHD something to be positive about, rather than cuts?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I recognise the issues that Carol Mochan has raised. When I announced the establishment of the cross-sector task force, it was aligned with £500,000 of additional investment in this year. The budget that is currently before the Parliament proposes an additional £7 million of investment specifically for neurodevelopmental support services. I encourage members to engage constructively with the budget process so that we can pass that budget and get that money into the system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask members to be briefer, please.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Thousands of people are still on waiting lists for assessments. A constituent of mine in East Dunbartonshire has been waiting for four years. That is simply not good enough. The Lib Dems have asked for the Government to focus on that issue, and I am pleased to see that £7.5 million has been allocated in the draft budget. However, all that people want to know is when the waiting list numbers will come down.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

This is a complex and challenging subject, and I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their constructive engagement on it. We are considering ways in which we can support assessment and diagnosis, but at the heart of our approach there must be a recognition of the significant systemic and societal complexity of the issue. Although diagnosis and assessment are important, we are taking a needs-based approach that recognises that assessment and diagnosis can be part of addressing a person’s needs.

I am grateful to the member’s colleague, Alex Cole-Hamilton, for his engagement in the work of the cross-party summit, as members from other parties have also done. I look forward to the summit being reconvened before the Parliament dissolves, so that it can discuss those matters further.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

To ask the Scottish Government what the new infrastructure delivery pipeline means for a replacement eye hospital for Edinburgh. (S6O-05400)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The refreshed infrastructure delivery pipeline confirms that replacing the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion remains one of the Government’s four priority health projects, alongside replacing University hospital Monklands and the Belford hospital in Fort William, and progressing the Barra and Vatersay community campus project in Barra.

Capital funding for the replacement of the eye pavilion has been fully committed, and we await the business case from NHS Lothian. It is usual for the business case process, construction and commissioning to take some time, and there will be greater clarity on the timeline following receipt of the outline business case.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The cabinet secretary will recognise the sensitivity of this matter. The eye pavilion was declared unfit for purpose in 2014. A replacement was committed to in 2018 but was cancelled in 2020, after which there was a U-turn during the 2021 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The next election is almost upon us. Although the development of the eye pavilion is in the pipeline, we do not have a clear timeline. We also know from the Government’s spending review that capital spending on health, as a proportion of all capital expenditure, is forecast to decrease. When will we have a clear timeline? Until we have that, people in Edinburgh will remain extremely anxious about the future of the eye pavilion.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There are a number of points in Mr Johnson’s question. I recognise the anxiety that he highlights.

I was grateful for an opportunity, alongside Mr Johnson, Ms Boyack, Mr Macpherson and other colleagues, to meet some of the eye pavilion’s patients, and I recognised their anxiety and the need for progress. That is why I am pleased that we have confirmation of the continued prioritisation of the eye pavilion replacement. As I have said, the capital investment that will be required has been fully committed to over the pipeline. We await the outline business case from NHS Lothian to confirm the rest of the timeline and the project’s progress.

Daniel Johnson referred to capital funding. I have to say that the capital funding that is available to us is being squeezed by United Kingdom Government decision making. Perhaps Mr Johnson can refer that concern to his colleagues at Westminster.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

When the cabinet secretary and other colleagues visited the old eye pavilion at my invitation, he would have heard that patient records are currently in paper form. Given the closure of the eye pavilion and the fact that those records had to be stored in halls and distributed around temporary services, will the digitisation of patient records and scans be taken into account in the design of and funding for the new hospital?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It was remiss of me not to reference the fact that Mr Briggs was at the meeting in the Parliament and that he helped to organise the visit to the eye pavilion. I was grateful to have the opportunity to see it. I will need to get back to Mr Briggs about where we are on the paper records. The Government’s general policy is to move to digitised systems and to ensure that we can have digital patient records, digital prescribing and digital applications that allow patients to interact with them. That is the general overview, but I will come back to the member on the specific principles involved in the project.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect women from rape and sexual assault in hospitals. (S6O-05401)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Rape and sexual assault occurring in our hospitals—or anywhere else in our society—is unacceptable. I expect all health boards to uphold their legal duties as employers to keep staff, patients and visitors safe. Everyone has the right to access healthcare or their workplace without fear of assault. The safety of patients and staff remains our absolute priority. That is why a national network has been created to bring together health boards and partner organisations to explore and share approaches to preventing sexual harassment across the national heath service in Scotland. That includes reviewing approaches to data, reporting and training, sharing resources and best practice, and providing support for staff and employers.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is welcome. However, last year, the Women’s Rights Network exposed the facts that there have been 276 sexual assaults and 12 rapes in Scottish hospitals over a period of five years. The Patient Safety Commissioner said that those numbers might be underestimates and called for all health boards to consistently record or categorise all incidents of sexual assault and rape. Can the minister confirm that all health boards are doing so? Does he agree that every woman should be entitled to be treated on a single-sex ward?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There are several elements in Ms White’s question. I have met Karen Titchener, the Patient Safety Commissioner, to discuss the issue with her. As I sought to do in my first answer to Ms White, I gave her my reassurance about our response to the Women’s Rights Network’s report on Scotland.

I expect all health boards to report incidents of sexual assault or harassment, and I expect suspected criminality to be reported to the police. Local boards have a local reporting obligation, on which I have clear expectations.

Ms White will be familiar with the Government’s policy on single-sex wards. It remains our policy that we expect boards to provide single-sex spaces where that is possible.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We are over the time limit, but, before we move to question 8, I am minded to take a couple of supplementaries to question 7 as long as they are brief.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Research carried out for the Women’s Rights Network’s report found that assaults in hospitals were not routinely recorded and that 133 hospitals did not hold data. I hear the minister’s answer, but can he give us assurances that, following that report, he had discussions with the Women’s Rights Network? What work he is doing to implement its specific recommendations?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have not met the Women’s Rights Network. The report has been debated in the Parliament, Ms Minto met cross-party MSPs in May, and the chief people officer has discussed the report’s findings with NHS Scotland’s human resources directors. We are taking those findings incredibly seriously. I have set out several steps that the Government has taken and the obligations that we expect NHS boards to observe as a result. We will continue to monitor progress on that.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

The human rights of women and girls in Scotland are not complex. Sex-based risk is real. Women and girls have unique vulnerabilities to sexual violence, including in institutional settings such as hospitals, but also in prisons, toilets and changing rooms.

Protections that are recognised in law should not be optional. The tribunal’s judgment in the case of the Darlington nurses was clear that failure to provide single-sex changing rooms violated their dignity—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A question, please.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

That vulnerability also applies to female patients in mixed-sex hospitals—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Let us hear a question.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

How many rapes of women and girls in Scottish hospitals are acceptable to the Government?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

None is acceptable to the Government. I have set out the steps that it is taking to provide protections for staff and patients who are accessing or delivering services in hospitals across Scotland.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential benefits of walk-in general practice clinics compared with other potential service delivery models. (S6O-05402)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are committed to making services more accessible for patients. As part of that, we are investing £36 million in walk-in general practitioner services to provide the distinct benefit of allowing patients to see a GP without an appointment.

The funding for those walk-in services is just part of almost £22.5 billion that has been allocated to the health portfolio, including a record £17.6 billion for services in and resources for the national health service.

Our continued investment in the NHS is allowing us to target areas that are experiencing long waits, to reduce backlogs and to get people the appointments and treatments that they need as quickly as possible.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

How have locations for the first walk-in clinics been chosen? Can the cabinet secretary provide more detail on how the clinics might operate?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Improving access to primary care is the key priority for the Government. We are building 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 approach, we are developing options to improve access to primary care, including the walk-in models, which will be open from Monday to Sunday and so provide more flexibility for patients.

We will develop those proposals first as a pilot model, which will be complementary and will not duplicate current core general practice. We are considering potential locations for those pilot sites, and we will set out further details as those plans develop.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio question time on health and social care. Before we move to the next item of business there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench teams to change places.

Budget 2026-27

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20487, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the Scottish budget 2026-27.

I advise members that, at present, there is time in hand for interventions, but that might change over the course of the afternoon. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am delighted to open today’s debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The debate provides an opportunity to discuss the committee’s pre-budget reports and how they have influenced the Scottish budget for 2026-27. I thank our clerking team and all the other committees for their hard work.

The FPA committee’s recent inquiry into the Scottish budget process recommended piloting new approaches to deliver a more joined-up and interactive debate. We have therefore set a broad theme of fiscal sustainability for today’s debate, recognising the pressures on the Scottish budget and individual portfolio areas.

Building on its work to support the debate, the Scottish Parliament information centre has helpfully produced a briefing that identifies common themes across committee pre-budget reports, which I am sure many members will draw on in their contributions. I particularly look forward to hearing about what has worked well and not so well in influencing Government budgetary decisions and about the impact of a parliamentary session-long approach to scrutiny. SPICe suggested that

“Across committees, there is a shared expectation that accountability should extend beyond explanations of spend to include clarity on impact and delivery.”

From the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s call for clearer performance targets to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s request for the Government to set out its priorities for the college sector and match resources to fund those priorities, it is clear that, through the budget process, committees are robustly holding the Government to account on how spending is achieving outcomes. Further, committees are seeking greater transparency of budgetary information and evidence that data and analysis are driving prioritisation and decision making while supporting effective parliamentary scrutiny.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Does Kenneth Gibson agree that, when it comes to transparency, it is not all about complicated stuff? Some of it is about simplicity and getting agencies to report on the same basis; some of it is about getting them to report in a timely manner. Our committee was faced with a situation in which some of the agencies that we were scrutinising had not yet published their annual report, for example. Does he agree that, on transparency, we need to get the basics right as well as addressing the complexity?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I completely agree with Daniel Johnson. That is very important. Some issues relating to the budget were even raised yesterday at our committee’s evidence session; no doubt some will also be raised at next Tuesday’s meeting.

Concerns over the clarity of Government policy feature highly in this year’s committee reports, with many requesting further work to be carried out to evidence the impact and sustainability of policies such as a growing social security budget. Other reports suggest that overlapping strategies, timelines and documents can hinder effective scrutiny. Across portfolios, committees are looking at whether prioritisation is clearly stated, justified and aligned with the Government’s stated objectives. More information is needed on the trade-offs between the spend that the Government is choosing to protect and the impact that that has on other funding areas. I note that the subjects of skills, climate change and social security have frequently been raised.

The FPA committee’s pre-budget scrutiny builds on the committee’s findings over successive years regarding the Scottish Government’s lack of strategic financial planning against a backdrop of fiscal pressures, including demographic trends. Ahead of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny this year, the Scottish Fiscal Commission said:

“the Scottish Government will face significant challenges funding devolved public services in the future, particularly over the next twenty-five years … because the population in Scotland will age earlier than in the rest of the UK.”

In June 2025, the medium-term financial strategy confirmed that the gap between funding and resource spending would rise to £2.6 billion by 2029-30. In the shorter term, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government warned that “difficult choices” would be needed for the 2026-27 Scottish budget.

There were challenging decisions for the United Kingdom Government in its autumn statement, too. The Office for Budget Responsibility noted that

“the scale and array of risks to the UK fiscal outlook remains daunting.”

In that context, and drawing on the SFC’s April 2025 “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, scrutiny was focused on responding to long-term fiscal pressures. After calling for views over the summer, we received 28 submissions, heard evidence in the autumn and published our report in October 2025. To inform our scrutiny, we visited the advanced manufacturing innovation district Scotland—AMIDS—in Paisley, as well as Vilnius in Lithuania to hear about the excellent futures thinking approach there and about policies on economic growth.

I will highlight some key findings, how they have influenced Government budgetary decisions and where commitments have not been forthcoming. One of our main recommendations was for much greater Government emphasis on longer-term financial planning to start mitigating the impact of future trends. We urge the Scottish Government to provide a full response to the SFC’s 2025 “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, repeating a previous recommendation relating to the SFC’s first such report in 2023.

The Government pointed to specific actions, such as its population strategy and Scotland’s migration service. However, that falls short of committing to produce a full response. Common to other committees, we ask for clarity in future documents on which areas of spending are being prioritised and deprioritised. The Scottish ministers replied that they recognise the need for clarity, explaining:

“Progress is being made to further improve this in our 2026-27 Scottish Budget, including clear references to how prioritised funding delivers the Scottish Government’s four priorities”.

We were not convinced that the Scottish Government has provided sufficient evidence of social security sustainability, and we repeated our calls for a review of the fiscal sustainability of social security spending, asking for outcomes arising from universal payments and services to be reviewed. The committee is unclear from the cabinet secretary’s response whether the Government will undertake that important work, because the response pointed to a previous report, a literature review and the development of its approach to public value.

On public service reform, we asked for a detailed plan on how the Government will meet its high-level targets on efficiencies and workforce, while minimising the impact on public services. We therefore welcome publication, alongside the Scottish budget, of the integrated public sector pay and workforce policy and of portfolio efficiency and reform plans. We look forward to examining those in detail.

An update was sought on progress with work that had previously been asked for in considering the potential benefits, risks and costs of introducing a new preventative spend category of expenditure. The Government’s work in that area is welcome, including the testing of a budget-tagging method for tracking preventative spend across portfolio areas of the budget, with publication of the results planned for summer 2026. I am sure that it will benefit all committees in the next session if they can clearly see where spending on prevention is occurring and making a difference.

The Government’s announcement of an extension to the invest to save fund to support portfolios, public bodies and local government to carry out reform projects is appreciated. Its response is also reassuring in confirming that projects are required to provide six-monthly reports, that outcomes are being monitored and that successes are being shared more widely across the public sector.

Our pre-budget report looked ahead to the Scottish spending review, which was published alongside last week’s budget. During a visit to Estonia in 2024, the committee noted the implementation of zero-based budgeting and asked Scottish ministers to reflect on how such an approach could be delivered in Scotland. We recommended that a zero-based budgeting approach should be taken to the Scottish spending review, and we requested in-depth information on the process for preparing, scrutinising and delivering that. In response, the Government said it already adopts

“the principles of zero-based budgeting”,

and that spending is reviewed in detail throughout the Scottish budget process. However, the Government has not provided the in-depth review process information that was requested.

With the UK Government’s autumn statement being four weeks later than it was in 2024, the timetable for Scottish budget scrutiny has been tighter this year. As a result, our committee agreed to carry out separate sessions on the spending review and the infrastructure delivery plan in February and March, although I expect both of those to be touched on when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government gives evidence to the committee on Tuesday. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to commit, in her closing speech, to providing that information on process in time to inform our spending review scrutiny.

The committee previously expressed concerns regarding recent funding settlements for the college sector, given its key role in developing a skilled workforce and in growing the economy. The uplift in funding for the sector in the Scottish budget is therefore encouraging, and I look forward to hearing more about the sustainability of the further education and higher education sectors from the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee later in the debate.

On capital funding, we asked the Government to set out the steps that it will take as part of its investment delivery plan to smooth out the “lumpy” capital budget over time. The Government suggests that

“through careful management of the pipeline, we can ensure a steady stream of investment in the infrastructure needed to deliver ministers’ priorities.”

It also continues to explore revenue finance models to expand capacity for infrastructure investment.

The spending review confirmed that a new £1.5 billion Scottish Government bond programme for infrastructure will launch in 2026-27 to support capital investment and diversify borrowing beyond the UK national loans fund. Our successor committee will want to keep a close eye on that to ensure value for money and the delivery of successful outcomes.

During our visit to Lithuania, the committee was impressed by the country’s approach to collectively developing and implementing Lithuania 2050, which is its national vision for the future. That includes buy-in from all political parties, its Parliament, public bodies and civic society, and a parliamentary committee is monitoring progress towards achieving the agreed national vision. The cabinet secretary told us that she was happy to consider that model, and we have asked for her conclusions by the end of January. We hope that she will look favourably on the approach, and we greatly anticipate receiving her response.

I commend the diligent and effective pre-budget work that has been carried out by committees.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the pre-budget scrutiny undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and other parliamentary committees.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank the parliamentary committees and their clerks for the important work that they have undertaken in relation to pre-budget scrutiny.

The Government is committed to building broad support across the chamber, and I view the role of pre-budget scrutiny by parliamentary committees as a vital step in that process. Fiscal sustainability is essential to delivering the Government’s four priorities—eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and ensuring high-quality sustainable public services.

A sustainable fiscal position relies on having a clear view of the medium term, and not only the decisions that are taken each year. The medium-term financial strategy sets out the multiyear fiscal outlook and associated risks. This year, for the first time, we have complemented it with a fiscal sustainability delivery plan that sets out our approach to managing longer-term pressures.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. Yesterday, the majority of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s evidence session with the Scottish Fiscal Commission and others dealt with the complexity of the fiscal framework, rather than the budget itself. If I can be cheeky, I will ask two questions. First, does the cabinet secretary have sight of that issue? Secondly, if the people giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee have an issue with the complexity of the framework, how on earth can other committees deal with it?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with the general point that Michelle Thomson made. The fiscal framework is incredibly complex and needs to be reformed. That is the ask that we have made of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that, during the next parliamentary session, we can build a degree of consensus about the need to reform the fiscal framework and, potentially, to simplify it.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. There is a case for some measure of reform. However, the last time that was done, parliamentary scrutiny was left very incomplete because of the timing. It was a very awkward situation for the finance committee at the time, because we did not have the facility to scrutinise what had already been decided.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have some sympathy with what Liz Smith said. However, what happened was largely outwith my control, because the United Kingdom Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time were very insistent on what we would describe as a closed process. It was not ideal, and we were not particularly happy with it either. However, that is a lesson for the future in terms of transparency.

Alongside the MTFS and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, the Scottish spending review and the infrastructure delivery plan provide the medium-term spending and investment context, giving Parliament greater visibility of strategic priorities. The spending review responds directly to committees’ calls for stability.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will make some progress and will come back after that.

The spending review responds directly to the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s calls for stability, providing multiyear certainty to local government, health boards and social security. It places fiscal sustainability at its core and provides clear links to Government priorities. The portfolio efficiency and reform plans detail how £1.5 billion in cumulative savings will be delivered, freeing up investment in public services. Similarly, the infrastructure delivery pipeline provides sectors with the clarity and confidence that they need for long-term planning by setting out an affordable and deliverable programme of projects alongside future projects. Taken together, those documents strengthen transparency and support more effective scrutiny of long-term choices. I recognise the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s call for stronger long-term financial planning, and I hope that those publications demonstrate our commitment to delivering sustainable public finances.

On public service reform, although those documents set out a clear path for future spending in Scotland against a backdrop of constrained resources and rising demand for public services, reform is essential. Our public service reform strategy, which was published in June last year, included an ambitious £1 billion efficiencies target that focuses on reshaping our public sector workforce so that we have the right number of people in the right roles. That is supported by the integrated pay and workforce policy that was published alongside the budget. The publication reflects the fact that 2026-27 is the second year of the three-year public sector pay policy. The Scottish Government recognises pay policy and workforce management as dual drivers of fiscal sustainability.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On the matter of pay, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has estimated that there is a £15 million funding gap in relation to meeting the cost of delivering the real living wage to adult social care workers. That will mean cuts to the service. Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether that is a result of the wrong baseline being used? If so, will that error be corrected?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The funding that is provided is for the real living wage. However, we have said that the national minimum wage, which is a statutory requirement, should be met by employers. We are topping up the funding for the real living wage, but the national living wage is the level of pay that they have to provide. I do not think that that is an unreasonable point to make to employers. They have a legal responsibility to pay that.

A managed reduction in head count will be supported, where appropriate, by intelligent automation to protect and improve front-line services. I know that that is an area of interest to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is encouraging the Government to go further in maximising opportunities in artificial intelligence.

In addition to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, other committees have been considering how public service reform can support fiscal sustainability. I know that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee focused on the invest to save fund this year, and I hope that it will welcome the budget’s increased investment in it of nearly £30 million. The fund catalyses efficiency, effectiveness and productivity by encouraging projects that will generate savings across the public sector.

We believe that prevention is central to long-term sustainability—a view that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee shares. Investment now to mitigate the harms of poverty can reduce future demand on acute services and increase participation in the labour market. That is why we are developing a method to identify and track preventive spend through the Scottish budget, with work under way to develop pilots, and first results planned for publication in the summer.

We share the view of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that prevention plays a critical role in ensuring the long-term sustainability of social security spend. We recognise the risks of increasing demand on public services and believe that investing in a fairer system today can reduce costs in the future. That is why, following the UK Government’s removal of the two-child benefit cap, the budget sets out how the Government will spend every penny of the £126 million that was released this year to keep more Scottish children out of poverty.

We believe that the budget also responds to and aligns with many other recommendations that came through in other committees’ pre-budget scrutiny. I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee for welcoming the Government’s commitment to engage with the college sector on clarifying future priorities.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which I convene, and our views on the discussions with Colleges Scotland. Does she accept that the evidence session that we had today raises serious concerns about how her budget presented the £70 million uplift for Scottish colleges, to the extent that the Scottish Parliament information centre cannot find the figures in the budget document? Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills acknowledged that that was not good enough and said that she will go away and look at it.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I acknowledge that Jenny Gilruth has today committed to clarifying the £70 million calculation, but let me be clear, as I am sure that Jenny Gilruth was, that the college sector got £694 million in last year’s budget and this year, it gets £764 million. That is a £70 million increase in core college funding available to the Scottish Funding Council to distribute across the sector, made up of £61.4 million of resource funding and an extra £8.2 million of capital. It is important to be clear about that, but Jenny Gilruth will absolutely come back to the committee on the point about the presentation.

I hope that members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee will welcome the budget’s support for skills through investing £2.4 billion in Scotland’s colleges, universities and skills system and providing capital investment of more than £480 million in key growth sectors over the spending review period through our enterprise agencies.

That investment complements the Government’s commitment to ensure that post-school provision is responsive to Scotland’s strategic skills needs, which is something that I know the Economy and Fair Work Committee has been focusing on. The investment and strategic approach to skills will support economic growth and productivity, as well as tackling poverty, all of which supports fiscal sustainability.

I hope that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee will welcome the additional £20 million in 2026-27 for the arts and culture sector through the Creative Scotland multiyear funding programme, with future year funding also committed. That investment strengthens financial stability for cultural organisations across the country, as recommended by the committee.

I trust that, equally, the Criminal Justice Committee will welcome the additional funding for justice organisations to support their delivery of essential front-line services, with the Scottish spending review supporting long-term planning and flexibility by providing indicative budgets.

I share the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s positive reflections on the development of the climate change taxonomy, which outlines a record of more than £5 billion of climate-positive spend in 2026-27.

Similarly, I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s activities on human rights budgeting. I am pleased that we have continued to strengthen our approach to equality budgeting. On 19 January, we published our first strategic integrated impact assessment.

I am aware that, although the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee did not hold a pre-budget evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands attended the committee today.

As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Government values the pre-budget scrutiny work that is undertaken by all committees, and I recognise calls to remove challenges to parliamentary scrutiny. There have been unavoidable delays to publications in this parliamentary session, including this year’s budget. The compressed timeline has limited the time that is available for scrutiny, and we support the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s call for the UK Government to consider devolved impacts when setting fiscal event dates.

We also recognise our responsibility to enable effective scrutiny, and we will continue to improve the timing, quality and transparency of our fiscal publications. I hope that members recognise the substantial reforms that the Scottish Government has introduced to the fiscal and budgetary information that is available to Parliament and the public, including through the introduction of the medium-term financial strategy, the creation of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and, more recently, the publication of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, as well as the package of fiscal documents that were shared with Parliament last week.

I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for recognising our progress, specifically on the level of information that is provided in the latest MTFS. I am proud that the budget represents further progress by baselining more than £750 million of level transfers between portfolios, which is a key area of concern for the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The Government is committed to working with Parliament to improve processes so that debates such as today’s enable meaningful cross-chamber engagement and add value.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In closing—with apologies to Craig Hoy—we believe that the budget responds to calls for clearer prioritisation and better links between spending measures and outcomes by being explicitly driven by the Government’s four priorities. The budget also recognises the vital role of fiscal sustainability in delivering our ambitions and provides greater fiscal certainty through the spending review and the infrastructure delivery pipeline.

I am proud that the budget has received positive feedback from stakeholders across all areas of our society, which demonstrates that it is a well-balanced offer for Scotland. I welcome members’ views on the budget and look forward to engaging across the Parliament throughout the remainder of the budget bill process.

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

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee, and I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I thank everyone who works in the criminal justice sector for their commitment and support. We very much appreciate the work that they do, and we recognise the challenges that they face day in, day out. I also thank everyone who gave evidence to inform our budget scrutiny, and our clerks and SPICe colleagues for their support in preparing our report.

Justice impacts everyone; therefore, the importance of having an effective, well-functioning justice system in which the public trusts cannot be overstated. The aim of the committee’s scrutiny is to focus on how sustainable the fiscal situation is for the justice sector. The committee recognises that there are no easy budgetary choices currently facing the Scottish Government. However, it is clear from the evidence that we have taken that the alarm bells are now ringing across Scotland’s criminal justice system.

The justice budget for this year is £4.6 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but—for context—it accounts for only 7 per cent of the total Scottish budget. Of the justice budget, 74 per cent, or £3.4 billion, is resource funding, which mostly covers pay and salaries. There is also a significant capital allocation of £643 million. However, taken out of the wider context, those figures mask a significant resource problem, in which, I fear, this budget will start to make only a small dent.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Can the convener say whether any stakeholders have expressed the same concerns that we are seeing across a number of portfolios: that the Scottish Government’s pay policy already looks like it is going to be breached over the cycle and that, in many areas—including, no doubt, in the Scottish Prison Service—there will have to be a real-terms cut in salaries in year 3? How does the convener think that that will go down with those stakeholders who make representations to our committee?

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

While there was a significant amount of discussion on pay and the impact of pay settlements, I do not recall that the specific point that Mr Hoy raises was part of the discussions that we had in our evidence sessions on the budget.

The committee heard from Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish Prison Service, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We also heard from community justice and third sector organisations working in the restorative justice space. They did not hold back when they told us what society demands of them in 2026, set against the impact that flat-cash funding has had on their organisations for the past three years. They painted a bleak picture; indeed, the justice secretary acknowledged that the warnings from the sector are “stark”.

Of the major justice organisations, only the Crown Office will receive a total settlement of the size that it said that it requires this year. In policing, the chief constable told us of the continuing escalating reporting of mental health-related incidents, alongside an alarming rise in social disorder, violence against the police and online-related crime and cybercrimes. She said that

“More than £2.5 billion ... should be invested back into policing”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 26.]

in Scotland, but that policing’s allocation is £1.7 billion for the coming year.

The Scottish Prison Service capital budget is set to grow by £103 million, but that increase is largely to fund the construction of the new HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

One of the concerns that is often raised with me by the police is that their capacity is very much used up by shortfalls in other public services, which mean, for example, that police officers have to attend accident and emergency departments or deal with missing persons. What lines of inquiry has the committee followed on that, what evidence has it taken and what assessment has it made of those sorts of pressures that the police face?

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

I thank Daniel Johnson for his intervention. He makes the point very well. In fact, the Criminal Justice Committee has spent quite a bit of time scrutinising the impact of, for example, mental health-related incidents on policing. Last year, we were told that it was the biggest policing challenge at that time. It is a hard nut to crack, but we will be revisiting it before the end of this parliamentary session.

There may be very limited budget left to address other crucial issues, such as modernisation, maintenance of ageing prisons, digital infrastructure such as drone detection, window grills and body-worn cameras, to name but a few. Severe overcrowding in our prison estate presents a potential challenge flowing from human rights compliance, which, in turn, could increase the risks of future costs in legal proceedings or compensation. There is also the risk of unrest in our prisons, exacerbated by overcrowding and increasing harm caused by substance use. Embedding new practices arising from new legislation—for example, trauma-informed practice—further shines a light on human rights-based budgeting principles.

As members will be aware, there is deep concern about the state of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which now has a capital backlog of around £818 million. Last week, we heard about the enormous risk faced by our firefighters and their families from a lack of decontamination and showering facilities in fire stations. Many firefighters return home from their shift with hazardous particulate fire materials on their bodies and clothes.

The committee is particularly concerned about lack of funding to allow the fire service to respond to the public need. Restructuring what remains of it in order to meet new demands cannot obscure the uncomfortable fact that we first need to ask whether the challenges of climate change, flooding and wildfires mean that we need a larger or a different fire service, building towards funding the necessary structure. Members will be aware of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s reform process that is currently under way, the focus of which is to reconfigure the service in line with the challenges that I have mentioned. Our committee will scrutinise the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service again in February on those challenges.

To conclude, we are hearing stark warnings from across the justice sector that further cuts and efficiency savings are not realistic and that new investment is needed. Aside from the funding for the Crown Office, the budget falls short of what the committee was told was needed. I urge the finance secretary to reconsider the spending review’s funding of the priorities in the vision for justice programme and the three-year delivery plan, particularly for our police, fire and prison services. I welcome the efforts that have been made in this year’s budget settlement, but it is time to respond to the alarm bells from the justice sector, and future budget settlements must do that.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. Let me use this more reflective debate to express my thanks to the clerks, and particularly to my fellow committee members. The position that I have assumed was not necessarily expected, but I am very much enjoying it.

I will try to reflect broadly the contributions to the committee. Given that many of my fellow committee members are in the chamber, I invite them to intervene if they think that I could elaborate with further detail.

This is a useful debate, because committees are where we should properly be thinking about fiscal sustainability. I welcome the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s innovation in that regard, although I note that its approach to budgeting for foreign travel has become somewhat looser since I left that committee.

Given the scope of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, and the nature of the economy, many of the things that impact the economy fall outwith the economy budget lines. We reflected on that point this morning at committee when the Deputy First Minister was in front of us. Likewise, many of the time periods in which those things will happen fall outwith a single budget year, so it is perhaps not a surprise that the Economy and Fair Work Committee has focused on the impacts beyond single budget lines and on multiyear funding.

One good example of that is the housing budget, which is not just about housing; it supports jobs and helps local economies to grow. We note that the budget line has seen some changes year to year. We welcome the 19 per cent increase in cash terms, but that is only a 3.4 per cent growth rate over the past five years, given the changes that have occurred. Likewise, we note that, over the past five years, the total number of completions across all sectors has declined. We need to see greater focus on that perspective in the budget.

More broadly, the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s priorities have focused on supporting business, women’s enterprise and skills development. I will make some comments about the enterprise agencies in a moment.

One point to note is that, very often when it comes to economic discussion, the Scottish National Investment Bank is considered something of a catch-all solution to the issues in the economy that members identify. It is welcome that we see a continued increase in capital funding towards the target of £2 billion, but that is a finite total. When we had the Scottish National Investment Bank in front of the committee, one area that we focused on was how the SNIB could achieve the status of a perpetual fund, to allow it to reinvest its capital. If we are going to see sustained and sustainable investment, and see the Scottish National Investment Bank achieve the status that we all want it to achieve, especially given the finite target, we need a vision and we need the plans to be put in place.

On the enterprise agencies, we very much recognise the importance of their work.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am very happy to give way to the deputy convener.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I was a bit slow to get up there, but I want to flip back to the Scottish National Investment Bank. It is important to note that the rules that are applied by the Treasury have now been eased off, so the SNIB can reinvest profits that are made. Daniel Johnson made a point about wider and deeper investment, but it is even wider and deeper still.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The deputy convener makes an excellent point. In a positive step, the committee wrote to the Treasury to ensure that the Scottish National Investment Bank was included in its broad review relating to capital treatment.

We note that the enterprise agencies received something of a tight budget this year, which is not unique. We must consider whether that reflects our broad priorities for the economy. We must also keep challenging the enterprise agencies on whether they are actually focused and taking the right approaches, given their budgets. I think that that starts with reporting. I alluded to that in my intervention on the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We did not have up-to-date annual reports from each and every one of the agencies—indeed, we struggled to get a clear articulation of how much of their budgets was being spent on running costs, compared with funds that were going out the door, so to speak. We got that information subsequently, having asked for it.

For transparency, we must start with clear and consistent articulation of the fundamentals. Although the enterprise agencies do broadly similar work, they were not consistently reporting their outcomes. We exposed that some of those metrics are based on self-reported measures. There needs to be greater examination of that issue.

Given the changing focus and scope of the enterprise agencies, we were also concerned about the “missing middle” in some areas of the economy when it comes to delivery of support by our enterprise agencies, especially for older, more mature businesses in non-high-growth sectors. Moreover, it is hugely important that we ensure that there is support from our economic agencies for people from all communities who might seek to engage in business, particularly women who are seeking to start and grow businesses.

One key issue that we must highlight is that we received evidence of a huge amount of concern from businesses about rates. We note the 15 per cent rates relief that is in the budget, but that is against the background of a significant revaluation. It was useful to hear reflections from the Deputy First Minister this morning that more work needs to be done on methodology. The methodologies are far from clear and transparent, and there is an on-going question about the role of the valuation boards, which the Deputy First Minister also reflected on.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government mentioned, we took a good deal of evidence on skills. We reflected on the fact that there is a sense of urgency and need from many industries, and that the agenda for upskilling and reskilling cannot wait. Rather than taking years to reform Skills Development Scotland and other agencies, such reform needs to be urgently brought forward. The changes that are being brought in by technology—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Johnson—

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

—-and demographics are important. I will close there.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. We have some time in hand, but we need to share it around. I call Clare Haughey to open on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

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

First and foremost, I offer sincere thanks to all stakeholders who engaged throughout the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s budget scrutiny process. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray MSP, and his officials for giving evidence and responding to the committee’s subsequent pre-budget report. I also thank the committee clerks for their work in supporting the committee’s members. I look forward to welcoming the cabinet secretary to the committee next week to discuss the budget and its implications for health, social care and sport across Scotland.

Members will be aware that the health and social care portfolio is again a budget priority. It remains the largest budget area in the Scottish budget, with total planned spending in 2026-27 coming to £22.5 billion. As is highlighted in the latest SPICe briefing on the Scottish budget, the health and social care portfolio will grow at a faster rate than any other area of the Scottish budget, at 1.5 per cent in real terms, compared with 0.2 per cent across the budget as a whole.

However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the health capital budget remains constrained. According to recently published analysis, it is set to fall by 6.6 per cent in real terms. Despite that, the spending review in 2026 also sets out plans for further increases in health and social care spending. The committee welcomes the inclusion in the spending review of indicative health board budgets for a three-year period. Such indicative budgets have long been requested in previous budget letters and reports, and they should go some way towards helping boards with future planning.

On average, the budgets for health boards in 2026-27 are set to increase by 14.5 per cent. However, some of that increase reflects the fact that budget lines that were previously transferred in-year have now been baselined. That said, the committee nonetheless welcomes the additional funding that has been made available to meet the pay settlements that have been agreed for nurses and doctors. The committee commends the efforts on all sides to reach those settlements and avoid widespread industrial action by resident doctors, unlike in England.

The committee also welcomes the additional funding for primary care and community health services, which has increased by 10.1 per cent. That includes the £36 million that has been allocated for walk-in general practitioner clinics.

Furthermore, the mental health budget is increasing by 11.8 per cent, with further mental health spending now baselined in health board budgets. As members may be aware, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s central focus in its pre-budget scrutiny was on mental health spending, and the committee has long raised concerns regarding the transparency of spend in that area. Although the additional investment is welcome, issues regarding transparency and the linking of spending to outcomes remain.

The Scottish Government has stated that NHS boards are expected to spend about £1.5 billion on mental health services in 2025-26. However, it remains impossible to break that down to any granular level of detail on specific services, which is an issue that many stakeholders raised during our pre-budget scrutiny. I am aware that the population health framework and the service renewal framework note that those links will be made clearer. However, I flag that, although the Government’s response to the committee states that it is “committed to improving transparency”, it has not yet given specific examples of how that will be achieved. To that end, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee awaits a detailed plan as to how improvements in that area will be implemented, and it stands ready to assist where necessary.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Another interesting point that was raised during the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s inquiry was the tension between revenue and capital. However, how preventative spend could better achieve goals might be another factor that the Government considers when trying to balance the challenges on expenditure.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Mr Sweeney must have been reading my speech, because I am about to come on to the issue of preventative spend.

There are also similar challenges in relation to the social care budget. Although the committee welcomes the additional funding of £471 million that is identified in the budget, it remains difficult to get an overall picture of planned social care spending for 2026-27.

There is some clarity on future budgets for health boards, but the same multiyear planning is not set out for social care, which the committee and stakeholders have been highlighting as an issue for some time.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the member accept that the £400 million-plus figure that she quoted for social care will be spent entirely on salaries, and that there is very little for services? COSLA has estimated that it needs £750 million to ensure that social care continues to be provided in our communities.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I wish that the member had been as vociferous in her complaints about the increases to employer national insurance contributions that her Westminster colleagues have imposed on social care providers, which have caused huge issues across health and social care.

Similarly, the committee argued in its pre-budget report that there needs to be a clearer definition of what constitutes preventative spend and that the level of resources that are currently assigned to preventative activities needs to be identified. Although that information has not been provided, the committee nonetheless welcomes the response from the Government and the references to on-going work in that area to tag spending and enable tracking, and looks forward to seeing the initial outputs of that work.

On preventative spend, the committee welcomes the strong uplift for sportscotland and the active, healthy lives budget line, with planned spending in those areas set to double in 2026-27. The importance of physical activity has been a common theme throughout the committee’s work during this session of Parliament, and I cannot overstate the positive impact that it has on individuals of all age groups, from both a physical health and a mental health point of view.

That said, the committee seeks reassurance as to whether those levels of spending will be maintained in 2026-27. With major sporting events happening this year, such as Glasgow hosting the Commonwealth games and Scotland reaching the men’s FIFA world cup finals, it is vital that we harness the momentum that the events will bring and ensure that there continues to be adequate funding for sport and physical activity for future generations.

The additional investment for the health and social care portfolio that is contained in the budget is most welcome, particularly in the light of the immense challenges that the sector faces. However, it remains of paramount importance that we can efficiently track spending in those areas. It is the view of the committee and, I believe, across the chamber that there is more to do to improve transparency in spending decisions. It is only by making such progress that we can make the best use of the budget to ultimately improve the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Unfortunately, as the cabinet secretary said, our committee has not carried out pre-budget scrutiny this year due to time pressures on our work programme. However, we met the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands this morning.

I plan to focus my remarks on some of the key budget announcements in the rural affairs portfolio, beginning with some of the headline figures. The rural affairs portfolio settlement is £1.2 billion in this year’s draft budget. According to independent analysis that was carried out by SPICe, that represents a 3.5 per cent real-terms cut compared with the 2025-26 autumn budget revision. That cut follows previous cuts to the portfolio’s funding in last year’s budget.

Although I understand why the Scottish Government is keen to emphasise the importance of fiscal sustainability when making its decisions on the budget, I am concerned that, when budgets are tight, the Government seems to go to this portfolio first in order to find savings. For at least the previous two budgets, it has been the only portfolio to see a real-terms reduction in budget, despite increasing pressure on rural areas to deliver on the Scottish Government’s climate and biodiversity targets.

I will turn to some of the specific budget lines. The SPICe budget briefing notes that the funding allocations for major agricultural payment schemes continue to be broadly frozen in cash terms. The £26 million in capital funding for the agricultural modernisation fund is a welcome development, and I look forward to hearing more about future spending plans for that funding. However, it is important to note that that is not additional funding; the £26 million that was taken from the ring-fenced budget in previous years is being returned.

A more welcome development in the draft budget is the increase in funding for the Crofting Commission. In its stage 1 report on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, the committee made it clear that an adequately resourced Crofting Commission, capable of effectively enforcing crofters’ duties, is essential to a healthy, thriving and sustainable crofting community. The additional funding will go some way towards ensuring that the commission has the tools to deliver on that promise.

On fisheries, the draft budget provides a settlement of £79.3 million for the marine directorate. That is the same settlement, in cash terms, as was provided last year, so that equates to a £1.7 million decrease in real terms. That means that the marine directorate’s budget has decreased in real terms for the third consecutive year.

Last year, the committee focused our pre-budget scrutiny on the marine directorate. As part of that work, we visited the directorate’s Aberdeen laboratories. The committee was concerned by the poor condition of the facilities and the impact that that was having on the scientists’ ability to carry out important science to inform fisheries management. We recommended that the Scottish Government prioritise a long-term solution to enable the restoration and modernisation of the facilities as a matter of urgency. Given that the site is in much need of upgrades and replacements and that there is a budget commitment to fisheries modernisation, it is disappointing that the marine directorate’s capital budget has been cut by £900,000 in real terms.

We were informed this morning that some capital work will be funded through the Scottish Government’s capital budget. Although there are no suggestions that it is a deliberate policy, there continues to be concern about the transparency of budget spending in relation to the marine directorate. I note that the Scottish Government has increased the marine fund Scotland by £2.1 million, which it says will support the delivery of outcomes for Scotland’s blue economy vision.

On forestry, the draft budget includes an increase in spending on woodland creation to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the land-use sector. The committee has heard consistently throughout our scrutiny of the draft climate change plan that public funding in the forestry sector could, if it is deployed effectively, help to crowd in additional private investment in the workforce and in the equipment that Scotland needs to achieve our climate and biodiversity goals. However, the budget for woodland creation still falls short of the budget in 2023-24, before large cuts were made the following year.

The draft budget allocates £7.1 million for support for our island communities, which represents a 13 per cent cut in funding compared with the funding that was provided in the 2025-26 autumn budget revision.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is important to recognise that, alongside the islands plan, there will be three accelerator deals for Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles. Those deals, which involve our supporting their borrowing capacity, have the potential to lever in hundreds of millions of pounds, so they must be considered alongside the money in the islands plan.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The 13 per cent cut includes a reduction in capital funding for both carbon-neutral islands and islands plan budgets. I am unclear how those cuts will help to deliver the ambitious commitments that the Scottish Government has made to our island communities, but I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said.

I think that it is fair to say that this year’s draft budget brings both good and bad news for people who live and work in rural communities. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on what I have said as the budget process continues, because I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say that we want the Scottish Government to deliver a budget that is fit for purpose and enables our rural communities to thrive and prosper.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate as the chair of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit.

One of the commission’s main roles is to scrutinise Audit Scotland’s budget proposals and report to the Parliament on them. On Monday, we published our report on Audit Scotland’s budget proposal for 2026-27. Audit Scotland’s budget comes from two sources. It estimates that the fees that it charges to audited bodies will provide 62 per cent of its budget for 2026-27, and the remaining 38 per cent, which amounts to £16,207,000, will require to be funded from the Scottish consolidated fund.

Although that represents an 8.2 per cent increase in the funding required from the Scottish consolidated fund, equating to an additional £1,224,000, the budget proposal for 2026-27 includes one-off costs of £878,000 related to a project to modernise the approach to public audit. The underlying and recurring increase in funding from the Scottish consolidated fund is therefore £346,000, or 2.6 per cent. The budget will support the delivery of audits of around 230 public bodies, 30 performance audits and continued investment in audit modernisation.

Audit Scotland said that its budget proposal has been prepared in the context of significant cost pressures and operational risks. It underlined, among other risks, future audit procurement costs and a pay award yet to be agreed. We have asked to be kept updated should any of those risks materialise.

The overarching theme of the debate is fiscal sustainability. Throughout this parliamentary session, the commission’s enhanced scrutiny of Audit Scotland’s budget proposals has been central to strengthening the fiscal transparency required for sustainable public finances. By seeking greater clarity on Covid-19-related funding, proposed audit fee increases and the resources allocated to support the Accounts Commission, we have ensured that budget proposals contain the level of detail needed to assess their long-term affordability and sustainability.

Across the session, we also asked Audit Scotland for greater financial planning to allow year-on-year comparison. A detailed business case was sought for the audit modernisation project to ensure that investment decisions were grounded in evidence of long-term value. In addition, we strengthened our challenge function by holding extra informal meetings to explore financial assumptions in greater depth. Those actions have ensured that Audit Scotland has generated the comprehensive financial information needed to support informed judgments about fiscal sustainability.

The commission also sought clearer evidence on how efficiency savings are achieved and underspends avoided. Audit Scotland identified in the 2026-27 budget £2,135,000 in efficiency savings. Those savings represent 5.2 per cent of its overall budget and arise from a range of measures, including a 5 per cent vacancy factor and reductions in staffing numbers and property costs. The commission has rightly explored whether those savings contribute to fiscal sustainability, given that the largest elements, such as the vacancy factor and reductions in staffing, are non-recurring. Non-recurring savings can help to address short-term budget pressures, but they do not strengthen the underlying financial position. That creates a challenge, as achieving savings of a similar scale in future years may require new measures. Of the £2,135,000 in efficiency savings identified, only the reduction in property costs of £220,000 is recurring, meaning that just a small proportion of the savings improves the baseline financial position year on year.

In our report, we noted that that is a challenge faced across the public sector. We also recognised that the public sector reform process may make delivering public audit more challenging for Audit Scotland—for example, if there are delays in public bodies’ readiness to be audited, or if public bodies are merged, created or closed.

The final allocation rests with the Scottish Government, but I highlight our conclusion that we are, on balance, content with Audit Scotland’s 2026-27 budget proposal of £16,207,000.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Clare Adamson, who joins us remotely.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am sorry to interrupt, Ms Adamson, but could you please put your camera on?

Thank you. Please continue.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. The committee adopted a cumulative approach to budget scrutiny over session 6. Consequently, our most recent budget report examines the current fiscal context, as well as evidence that we have received throughout the session. We have heard from the culture sector about the perfect storm of the impacts of Covid, budget pressures and reduced income, while participation and operating costs have also been challenging to the sector. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to all those who provided evidence for their time and contributions, and to the clerks and SPICe for their support.

Before I proceed, I note that there was some disappointment that the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report was not received until after 6 o’clock last night, and that many of the questions that were asked in our pre-budget scrutiny have not as yet been answered. We will explore those issues further with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture when we take evidence from him on the budget in a couple of weeks.

On the fiscal context for the culture and heritage sector, as is outlined in our report, we continue to welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to increase funding for the sector by £100 million per year by 2028-29. As part of that commitment, culture funding was expected to increase by £20 million in 2026-27, and I note that that uplift had been included in the draft budget that was published earlier this month. I assure the cabinet secretary that that is welcome. However, despite additional funding, the culture sector remains under significant pressure. Witnesses have highlighted to the committee that the uplift in culture spend may, to some degree, be being used to help the sector to meet the on-going pressures of increased costs and falling participation, rather than going towards generating improved cultural outcomes.

Our report asked that COSLA and the Scottish Government respond to concerns that increased funding for the sector

“may be being offset by funding reductions by local government.”

Additionally, we requested that the Scottish Government respond to concerns about disparities in the provision of cultural services across Scotland. COSLA has stated that the increased culture budget has not benefited local authorities. It noted that local government has seen reduced funding and highlighted that there are increasing levels of ring-fenced and directed funding.

That makes it difficult to see how our ask for plans to support greater collaboration between partnerships across the Government and local authorities can be met. The Government did not respond to our request for it to set out how issues around local government culture funding and potential disparities in culture provision and access might be addressed.

We have asked the Scottish Government how it is addressing the skills shortages that are being faced by the historic environment sector in particular. We hope that that can be addressed in collaboration with the education system and the revision to apprenticeships that was contained in the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed yesterday.

We would also like further information about how the upcoming spending review can consider a capital programme for the heritage sector to support the upkeep of cultural assets.

Throughout session 6, the committee has heard calls for greater provision of multiyear funding. We welcome the expansion of Creative Scotland’s multiyear funding programme, recognising the improved stability and confidence that that provides to the organisations that it supports. Given the programme’s progress and success, witnesses emphasised that multiyear funding should be expanded to a greater variety of cultural organisations. We have pressed the Scottish Government on its 2021 commitment and are hoping that the number of three-year funding settlements for directly funded organisations can increase.

We had concerns around strategic approaches to funding decisions. We welcome the Scottish Government’s response to our report, which recognises on-going calls for consideration and transparency around the strategic use of additional funding. We await its response to our request to set out what progress has been made towards adopting a strategic approach to funding over session 6.

Our report included several additional questions and recommendations to the Scottish Government in the area of culture. We need an urgent update on the delivery of the culture strategy action plan and an on-going review of the culture sector and Creative Scotland.

We also would like a clear set of metrics to assess the impact of cultural spend. We suggested that the on-going review of the national performance framework could offer an opportunity to increase budget alignment, particularly across portfolios, to achieve a more strategic approach to meeting goals.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Could you bring your remarks to a conclusion, Ms Adamson?

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will do, Presiding Officer. My apologies—it is difficult to time my speech at home.

We will take up several outstanding questions with the cabinet secretary. However, we welcome the progress towards the £100 million of additional funding for the culture sector, as delivered in the draft budget.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will not spend much of my speech talking about this or that line of spending in the net zero, energy and transport portfolios or about this year’s direction of travel. There will be an opportunity for the committee to consider those matters when it takes evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport next month. At those sessions, the committee will jointly consider the 2026-27 budget and the draft climate change plan—it makes sense to do so, because it is clear that the committee must read across those documents, from one to the other.

I will reflect on the extent to which what we might call net zero thinking has been fully embedded in the budget-setting process. Let us be clear that public confidence about Scotland’s net zero momentum and direction of travel has clearly been dented in this parliamentary session. One way for the Scottish Government to restore that confidence is for it to more convincingly show its workings on how it expects to achieve its spending decisions to drive emissions downwards.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s pre-budget representations were about the joint budget review, which was set up at the end of the previous session of Parliament to improve budget information on climate change and increase alignment between budgets and the climate change plan.

I do not need to remind everyone—but I will, because people might have forgotten—that that work had three main strands. The first was to include in each annual budget a climate change assessment narrative—an overview of the impact of spending decisions on the climate. That was an opportunity for the Government to go beyond the narrow confines of the balance sheet and to explain, for example, how second-order outcomes of the headline spend could have an impact on emissions and on the private finance that is needed for particular policies and projects that are linked to net zero—not in a vague and aspirational way, but by setting out concrete actions and any relevant modelling or estimates.

The second strand was a so-called taxonomy approach for budget spend lines, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, that would set out how those spend lines do or do not align with emissions reduction goals. The Scottish Government embarked on that approach in this session with a rather simple traffic light system, but it has undertaken to “deepen”—its word—the taxonomy and to expand its coverage to make it more useful.

The third strand was the development of a net zero assessment—a process to evaluate the climate impact of policies and their associated budgets early in the policy development stage.

In other words, I take that process to be somewhere upstream of budget setting and a process that might even, in some cases, filter out projects or policies that are simply too costly—to borrow a word from finance—with regard to their carbon output to go anywhere near the final budget.

In that connection, I remind the Parliament that what we are discussing today is not the only budget that the Parliament has to monitor. We are expressly bound to a carbon budget, with a spending limit of no more than 175 million tonnes of CO 2 between 1 January this year and the end of 2031.

Turning back to the budget that we are debating, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has not yet collectively considered the 2026-27 offering, so I will be careful when I express a view. I simply say that, although the committee welcomes the start that the Scottish Government has made during this parliamentary session on implementing the three key recommendations of the joint budget review, the momentum needs to be kept up. I am not sure that I have seen much momentum this year on those three strands.

My concern is compounded by what I see as a lack of rigour in how the draft climate change plan sets out financial costs and benefits. I stress that that is a personal view, not a committee view, but it is shared by some of the experts we have heard from. For instance, the Auditor General found the costs in the draft climate change plan to be vague. He said that the plan

“includes limited information on how the cost estimates were calculated and what assumptions underpin them, and it recognises that there is significant uncertainty associated with many of the estimates.”

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will I get my time back if I give way, Deputy Presiding Officer?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will give you some of the time back.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

At both of the committees that I sit on, I have mentioned several times the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s fiscal sustainability perspectives report. The reason that I have often asked about that is to check the knowledge and understanding of it. Fundamentally, that report makes it clear that Scotland cannot get to net zero because of the anticipated finance under the terms of the current fiscal framework and because of the critical dependency on fiscal transfers. Is your committee aware of that report from a financial perspective?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee certainly considers all the costs, and we have considered the implications. The climate change plan has been drawn up by the Scottish Government, which has put some fairly opaque costings and savings in it. It is for us to drill down into those, and I am sure that we will bear in mind the point that the member made.

This debate is about fiscal sustainability, but I will end by talking about parliamentary sustainability, by which I mean the doggedness that the Parliament needs in order to see things through to the end. It means holding on to institutional memory while individual parliamentarians come and go. I will not be here in May, but others who are listening to the debate will be. Whoever forms the next Government, it will be up to the members of the next Scottish Parliament to hold them to account on delivery of the joint budget review on climate change. There is still quite a way to go on that.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I am pleased to contribute on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee to the debate on the Scottish Government’s budget for 2026-27. I thank all those who engaged with our pre-budget consultation and provided oral evidence, and I thank the cabinet secretary for responding to our report. I also thank the clerks to the committee for their continued support throughout the process.

The Social Justice and Social Security Committee considered the affordability of Scotland’s social security system, the Scottish Government’s plans to fund the level of spending that it had forecast, the benefits of the increase in social security spending and how that compares with other budget priorities. We also considered whether specific benefits, such as the Scottish child payment and the adult disability payment, could be adapted. The cabinet secretary has confirmed the reduction in the additional amount that the Scottish Government will need to invest in social security assistance over and above the relevant block grant adjustments.

The cabinet secretary does not believe that spending levels for social security are unsustainable. However, the Fraser of Allander Institute told us that, despite that, the nature of social security expenditure still means that it can be less predictable and more volatile than other forms of spend.

We heard that, as benefits are demand led, the only ways to reduce costs are by limiting eligibility or by reducing the need for social security in the first place. That could be achieved by improving people’s health and wellbeing, for example. The Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland—the ALLIANCE—suggested Scotland’s health and population framework as a potential avenue for that.

Both the Scottish child payment and the adult disability payment were discussed extensively by stakeholders, given the proportion of spend that they account for, as well as the impacts that those payments have on people’s lives.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

We were told at the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday that the proportion of people who are being accepted for claims has in fact reduced. It used to be about half; now it is only about a third. Is that having an impact on the costs?

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Judging from the evidence that we have taken at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, there is still insufficient data being provided. It is timely that Social Security Scotland representatives are attending our committee meeting tomorrow, so we will follow up on that information to see how effective the payments are in terms of people’s lives. I thank John Mason for that.

The forecast increase in social security payments for carers was described as significant. The Scottish child payment is widely supported among stakeholders for the role that it plays in reducing child poverty. We note the announcement that the payment will be increased to £40 for babies under the age of one from 2027-28. We also heard that the Scottish Government would have increased flexibility over the design of the payment if it were to become a form of childhood assistance as opposed to a top-up to universal credit. We asked the Scottish Government what scope there is for that, and we welcome the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that the Scottish Government is committed to reviewing the legislative footing on which the Scottish child payment is based.

We considered how the Scottish Government intends to spend the money that was allocated to mitigating the two-child limit, given that the UK Government has now withdrawn that policy. We welcome the confirmation from the cabinet secretary that the money will be invested in other initiatives to tackle poverty, including through additional funding for the Scottish welfare fund, Children First and Aberlour Children’s Charity, alongside a £49 million boost to the tackling child poverty fund.

We heard that crucial data that could inform policy for adult disability payment is lacking. Edel Harris OBE, chair of the independent review of adult disability payment, told us that there is not enough information on the impact of ADP on people’s lives, nor is there enough data on the number of disabled people in Scotland.

Data on what is driving demand for adult disability payment is vital to inform future spending. We are therefore pleased that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will publish information on that by the end of next month. The impact of giving people cash payments versus improving public service provision needs to be properly evaluated if money is to be spent as effectively as possible. We welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation that more analysis is needed and that that will be considered during the development of the third tackling child poverty delivery plan.

We also heard evidence about specific changes that could be made to improve people’s circumstances. Increased funding for advice services and improving the take-up of existing benefits were mentioned, especially in relation to pension credit, which can be a passport to other devolved support.

The relationship between universal and targeted benefits was raised in evidence, and I note the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that the Scottish Government has no plans to remove any benefits or entitlements from people.

We were pleased to hear that the Scottish Government’s chief statistician is working with the UK data-sharing team to streamline data-sharing processes in order to improve access to data about Scotland.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to take part in the debate on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Public service reform forms the first pillar of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, and it was the focus of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny. In particular, we looked at the invest to save fund, a £30 million pot that is aimed at supporting public sector efficiency projects.

During the conclusion to my speech in the debate last year, I noted that the committee agreed on the urgent need for transformational change in councils and expressed hope that, when I stood up today, I would be able to reflect on concrete evidence of a decisive shift towards preventing poor outcomes instead of having to deal with their consequences.

I welcomed the Scottish Government’s recognition of the need for that change. It had the opportunity to demonstrate that further when the public service reform strategy was published in June 2025. The strategy sets out commitments to changing the system of public services, based on three principles: prevention, joined-up services and efficiencies.

Local government has taken an active role in driving change. There are various organisations, professional networks and initiatives to support individual councils, and we were pleased to hear of many great examples of transformation projects and collaboration.

We called on the Scottish Government to address potential barriers to such projects, including workforce capacity, morale, resilience, leadership and lack of data. Two of the most prominent barriers were the lack of multiyear settlements and the high cost of initial action, which the invest to save fund sought to address.

Multiyear funding certainty is a long-held ambition of local government. The Scottish spending review, which was published alongside the Scottish budget, provides resource spending plans up to 2028-29 and capital spending plans up to 2029-30. Although that is welcome, it suggests that there will not be increases in local authority funding across the next three years. However, the cabinet secretary told the committee yesterday that we could expect the initial estimates in the spending review to change.

We welcomed the invest to save funding and recommended that the Scottish Government consider increasing the fund. Although the fiscal sustainability delivery plan recognises that

“releasing efficiencies often requires initial investment”,

the invest to save fund remains at £30 million in this year’s budget.

Our recommendation of the continuation and extension of the fund was in the context of some of the other suggested improvements. We thought that the fund could better incentivise collaboration between different parts of the public sector, and we asked the Scottish Government to consider how the fund could be accessed across local authorities without a bidding process. The response from the Scottish Government to our letter comments on our recommendation that the funding should continue, but not on our suggestions for improvement. I hope that, in her concluding remarks, the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to provide the Scottish Government’s view on those proposals.

I will move on to funding for local government more generally. Although there has been real-terms growth in local government budget settlements in recent years, the overall financial situation of local government looks challenging. A primary factor is the significant increase in demand, particularly in areas of education and social care.

Although there has been a real-terms increase in overall revenue funding for local authorities, it falls short—by almost £1 billion—of what COSLA suggested was required. The capital allocation to local government is also reduced in the budget.

That leads me to how COSLA and the Scottish Government worked together in the development of the budget. Last year, I set out that it was pleasing to see evidence of a broader consensus between the spheres of government on the budget.

The much-anticipated fiscal framework between COSLA and the Scottish Government was published in October and, in evidence to us, COSLA was broadly positive about progress on that.

We can see from the recent budget a continuing reduction in the use of ring fencing by the Scottish Government. Around 7 per cent of the total revenue allocation to local government next year will be either ring fenced or transferred in-year from other portfolios. That is down from 18 per cent before the Verity house agreement was signed.

In conclusion, I will return to whether I was right to be optimistic in my concluding remarks last year. As I said, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan identifies that

“releasing efficiencies often requires initial investment”.

The continuation of the invest to save fund can, I hope, encourage and support continued transformation in local government. However, there is room for improvement. Access to that funding must be more flexible to suit the needs of local government. It is not yet clear whether the current funding that is provided to local authorities, or that is available through the invest to save fund, will allow them to realise ambitions for transformation and the public service reform strategy.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I thank the committee members, the clerks, SPICe and our stakeholders, who all got involved in pre-budget scrutiny.

However, what I will say next I say not as convener of the committee, but as someone who is now sitting through a budget debate as a convener for the second time: it does not work. In my humble opinion, this is not a good use of parliamentary time. Ross Greer agreed with that last year—I do not know whether that is the reason why he is not here this year. He said, as a Finance and Public Administration Committee member, that it did not really work.

I accept that Mr Gibson and the committee have tried to change the process slightly by having a focus on fiscal sustainability, but I do not honestly think that anyone watching this debate would think that it has been a particularly good use—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

No one is watching.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes—as Mr Hoy says, probably no one is watching.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would Mr Ross agree that one area where we could improve things would be to have a finance bill process, whereby everybody who wanted to pitch into budget discussions could do so?