Karen Adam
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“That is the question that I come back to: who is this growth for? When I think about economic growth in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, I do not think first about a graph or a statistic; I think about the young folk in Buckie who wonder whether there will be a good job for them if they stay in their home town.”
“In my constituency, I see that potential everywhere. Fraserburgh harbour has a master plan that looks to future proof one of Scotland’s key fishing ports. Peterhead port, with links to fishing, energy and trade, is already a massive asset for Scotland.”
“I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new post. It is great to see him in the Parliament. When we talk about the economy, it can sometimes feel like we are talking about something that is quite abstract—something that is separate from people’s everyday lives.”
“It affects access to education, work, freight, business confidence and how quickly and cleanly produce from one of Europe’s most important fishing ports can reach the market.”
“Karen Adam: I thank the member for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to say that I have already opened conversations and will discuss what next steps the campaign is asking for.”
“The range of amendments before us shows exactly why Scotland needs these powers to be in Scotland’s hands. While other parties pull the debate towards delay, denial, dependence or unrealistic simplicity, my constituents need a serious Scottish plan that is rooted in jobs, bills, climate responsibility and, importantly, a community benefit…”
The complete record
Every one of 357 lines we hold for Karen Adam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“To my disabled constituents, and to disabled people across Scotland, I say this: you are not the problem. The problem is a world that has been built without you in mind. Let this international day of persons with disabilities be not just a date in our diary but a call to action that we answer with real, lasting, practical change. 17:20”
“I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for using her voice and her lived experience to challenge exclusionary structures and for bringing the motion to the chamber. I also thank the disabled people’s organisations, advocacy groups and charities across Scotland that fight, every single day, for equality and human rights, often while navigating the very barriers that they are campaigning to remove. My hope, and my commitment, is for a Scotland where everyone can take part, whatever taking part means for them. For some, like Pam, that will be taking part in employment, politics or public life. For others, it will be living independently, travelling safely, learning in a classroom where they are understood and feel welcome or simply being part of their local community without facing a wall of barriers. All those things are equal and valid ambitions.”
“in employment, education, transport and access to public services” and it rightly commends disabled people’s contributions to our communities, our economy, our culture and our public life. That contribution is immense, but too often it is made in spite of, not because of, the system. As a constituency MSP, and as convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I hear time and again that our world is still not fit for purpose for many disabled people. We have a society in which some of the best players are left on the bench, not because they lack talent but because the game is set at hard mode for disabled people. As the Scottish Human Rights Commission has reminded us, human rights need to be built into the way in which we design services from the very start, not patched on at the end when the damage is already done.”
“That was not about his abilities; it was about other people’s assumptions and ignorance, and it was degrading. Now, as a mum of neurodivergent children with additional support needs, I see those patterns in different ways. My children, like so many others, have too often been treated as problems to be fixed—as disruptors in classrooms that were never designed with them in mind in the first place. Children know when they are seen as an inconvenience, and they sense that they do not belong in the very place where they should feel the safest. That does real harm to their confidence, their wellbeing and their education. The motion before us recognises those everyday exclusions. It acknowledges that disabled people still face “barriers ...”
“I congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing this members’ business debate to mark the international day of persons with disabilities. This year’s theme is fostering disability-inclusive societies for advancing social progress. That theme recognises something very simple: that, when we remove barriers and create equal opportunities, we do not just help disabled people—we strengthen our whole society. For me, that is not abstract. I grew up as a child of a deaf adult—a CODA—and, from a very young age, I was painfully aware that the world was not set up for people like my dad, who is deaf. I watched bank staff, officials and people in professional positions speak over him and treat him as if he was a child without capacity, simply because he could not hear. Decisions were made around him instead of with him.”
“Can the minister advise what steps the Scottish Government is taking to look at improvement and reform of audiology services, particularly in relation to engagement and collaboration with stakeholders? Jenni Minto: As I indicated, we are continuing to engage with national health service boards, the third sector and private providers to scope out potential models for any future community hearing care services, ensuring that the voices of those with lived experience inform that work. Sport (Child Poverty Reduction) 8. Humza Yousaf: To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the use of sport to support its goal to reduce child poverty. (S6O-05205)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how the Scottish economic link licence is working. (S6O- 05190)”
“We heard that there is a general impression that the numbers of withdrawals from religious observance and religious and moral education are low. However, the committee found that there is very little information on the numbers of withdrawals, nor is there any information available to us on what the children who are withdrawn from religious observance and religious and moral education do during the lessons from which they are withdrawn.”
“Irrespective of the view that we came to on the bill, we all recognise that there are many serious concerns about it. If the bill progresses to stage 2 today, it will have to be amended to respond to those concerns. Moreover, since we reported, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has issued its judgment in relation to withdrawal from religious education in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the judgment is specific to the education system in Northern Ireland, but we nonetheless welcome the cabinet secretary’s letter noting that the Scottish Government is confident that the judgment does not impact on the bill. Significant concerns were expressed to us about parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Currently, parents and carers have the legal right to withdraw children from religious observance and religious and moral education.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the bill in my capacity as convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. It is a short bill with two main purposes. On the face of it, it appears to be quite limited in scope and, to some extent, it was presented to the committee as a technical bill. It has, however, been an immensely challenging bill for the committee to consider. There was not one stakeholder whom we heard from who offered unreserved support for it. As I will return to at the end of my speech, ultimately, a majority of members have decided to recommend support for the general principles of the bill, but it has not been an easy decision to reach, and a minority of members have either been unable to make a recommendation on the general principles or do not support them.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of UK fiscal decisions on the Scottish budget and the certainty of local government funding. (S6O- 05167)”
“[Interruption.] Rural Scotland feeds this nation, but Westminster starves it of fair funding and the fair treatment that it deserves. That is why we need Scottish independence.”
“The power, the money and the decision making all sit in London but, regardless of which party is in charge, Westminster has never shown that it is willing to put Scotland’s fishing industry or our interests first, and certainly not the interests of rural Scotland. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Karen Adam: If we want stable investment, a fair funding share and an economic system that actually fits our needs, we have to be honest about what is required. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Karen Adam: We can and must fight for the best possible deal within the union, and the motion is part of that fight, but the long-term answer is independence, which would give the ability to design funding that follows our fleet and to negotiate directly for our coastal economy.”
“They can invest in new kit and new markets, but they have to be sure that the fish and the workforce will be there. The Scottish Government is doing what it can with its powers, investing through the marine fund Scotland and using the economic link to keep more value here, which I welcome. I thank the cabinet secretary for listening to the fishers and processors and for agreeing to meet with me to discuss the issue further. We cannot ignore the damage that Brexit has done to the sector or the way that the Conservatives and Labour have treated rural Scotland as a whole. The Tories lined everything up and talked about a sea of opportunity, and Labour has chosen to own that project and carry on. There is a clear pattern.”
“It is not just about the boats that do the catching; it is about the processors in our local communities and the factories that keep the local economy moving, turning the catch into world- class seafood. Those processors are often the biggest workplaces in our towns. When this kind of funding is cut, it is those processors, workers and, ultimately, communities that pay the price. That is why the landing obligations and the strengthened economic link rules that were brought in by this Scottish Government are so important. Those policies have already started to shift more Scottish fish into Scottish ports and Scottish processors. That is what happens when decisions are taken in Scotland with Scottish jobs in mind. Processors in my constituency tell me that they have the capacity for more.”
“What the Conservatives did to the fishing industry in Scotland was nothing short of an utter and absolute betrayal. To sit there and point the finger— [Interruption.] You can shout from your sedentary positions all you want, but you know the damage—sorry, I will speak through the chair. They know the damage that Brexit has done to our fishing industry and, no matter how much finger pointing they do, they cannot get away from it. Folk in Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Macduff and Buckie know that the work that they do is valued— and it should be. Their work is valued in our Parliament, even if it is not clearly understood or valued in the London Parliament.”
“Funding should follow the fish, the fleet and the jobs. It certainly should not be based on a population number that has been scribbled on a spreadsheet that is hundreds of miles away from our harbours. I condemn the UK Government’s decision. It is damaging and wholly unfair, and I join the Scottish Government in calling on the UK Government to reverse it. Tim Eagle: I completely agree with the member on that point; it is absolutely disgraceful what Labour has done. However, the SNP’s stated policy is to go back into the common fisheries policy, which would cause even more damage than what Labour is doing. Does she accept that point, which we keep coming back to? Karen Adam: I was waiting for that comment. We need to stop pointing at bogeymen in the room who are not there.”
“Giving Scotland around 8 per cent of the pot for a fishing industry that accounts for over 60 per cent of the UK’s total fishing capacity is exactly the sort of thing that we have come to expect from any London-based Government. Scotland is never at the top of the UK Government’s list and our fishing industry is never prioritised. Scotland has been handed an 83 per cent cut while England’s proportionately smaller fishing industry walks away with over £300 million. Whether it is Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson, it does not matter who is in number 10. The colour of the party in Government changes but the message it sends to my coastal community stays the same: you are expendable. England’s industry will always top Scotland’s as a priority for Westminster, no matter how much we contribute.”
“Presiding Officer, if you stand at any of the harbours in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast before dawn, you will see what this debate is really about: boats landing, crews coming off after a hard shift—as always—and processors getting ready to work, with markets already bustling. My constituency helps to feed the nation and beyond. That is not just an industry that is economically vital, but is also part of who we are along the coast—fishing is the culture, the identity and the daily life of our communities. The sea gives us life but it often takes it away, and I pay tribute to those who have been lost working in our vital industry. I am shocked at the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland just £28 million out of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. However, I cannot say that I am surprised.”
“There should be no further consents for offshore wind developments until the impacts on our fishing sector are addressed in full, including through financial compensation for losses, to ensure that the fleet remains viable and profitable. We cannot ignore the voices of the more than 600 people who turned up for the meeting in Findhorn the other night. We need to listen. Scotland’s fishermen deserve more than warm words; they deserve clarity, consistency and real support. Our amendment strengthens the debate by highlighting a key issue of concern for communities across the north-east. Time will tell whether the other parties have the bottle to stand up for our fishing communities. 16:15”
“Mr Lumsden often speaks up for the oil and gas sector and for our energy workers. What are his plans for what will happen after the decline in oil and gas? What about a just transition for those workers? Douglas Lumsden: Our fishermen should not be thrown aside just to promote offshore wind. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Rather than bulldoze through historic fishing grounds, the Government should be working with coastal communities to protect fishing as the renewable, climate-smart food source that it is. The Scottish Government cannot claim to support fishing while allowing developments that directly undermine the sector. Let me put it plainly: we cannot prioritise offshore renewables over our fishing communities.”
“We must keep the focus on what happens to women in the room, in that moment. It is important to listen early, act quickly and be clear, to provide real continuity and to keep instructions sharp and updates plain so that families can see progress without having to fight for it. That would set us up in those early days for achieving a society that is truly founded on wellbeing. I will finish simply: this is about creating trust and providing care that people can rely on. If we hold to those basics, we will not just talk about having safer, kinder and more consistent care but deliver it—excuse the pun—for every family in Scotland, as we absolutely should. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. 16:48”
“When improvement is working, we should scale it and sustain it. A new early pregnancy, maternity and neonatal oversight group will keep an eye on delivery of those aims, but what matters most is that families feel the difference when such care is given. Birth trauma needs plain speaking. If someone was ever dismissed, not believed or left without answers, that should matter. People should not be regarded as making a fuss if they still feel an aftershock months or even years after their experience. Services must be trauma informed and include postnatal debriefs that answer questions, easy routes into perinatal mental health support and care that recognises how poverty, disability, rurality and language can compound risk and fear. Equity should not be simply part of a slogan—it must be a part of safety.”
“When something goes wrong, families should get a plain-language explanation and be able to see what has changed as a result. Staff should be supported to speak up and be heard, and boards must act immediately when concerns are identified. Families should be able to see that action and not have to chase it. We should also keep sight of progress. Over the past two decades, Scotland has reduced infant mortality, neonatal deaths and stillbirths, through the support achieved by having more midwives and consultants. That does matter, but progress never represents a finish line—it creates a responsibility to keep moving. When inspection flags risks, action must be quick and visible. When the culture falls short, leadership must step in. When families ask for clarity, they should not be met with jargon.”
“That is how care becomes more personal and more reliable, and not just the subject of a postcode lottery. Continuity matters, too. Women should have a named midwife and a small team that they see regularly, without being passed from pillar to post, because experiencing such an approach lowers stress and improves outcomes. I have believed that for many years, and—perhaps I should declare an interest here—when I was expecting my fifth child I signed a petition in favour of such an approach, because I knew how important continuity was through my lived experience. I still believe that now. Let us make continuity real for the women who need it the most—in particular, for those who have high-risk pregnancies, as I did— and then build it across the service so that it is the norm and not an exception.”
“However, it builds trust only if boards act quickly and report openly so that families can see that change. National standards for maternity care have been commissioned to make expectations clear for everyone, and ministers have said that inspection findings will be acted on decisively. Delivering clear standards, honest inspection and rapid local action—that is how we build confidence. Feeling safe is not only about what happens when something goes wrong but about the care that people receive every day. I am glad that the Scottish patient safety programme’s perinatal improvement programme and the best start supporting boards are there to improve day-to-day practice by achieving better handovers, clearer communication and stronger teamwork, particularly in emergencies.”
“I have seen the difference that good care makes, but I have also seen poor care—I have seen poor practice that leaves a lasting mark. I understand the difference that it makes when people are listened to, when plans are explained and when people are treated as partners in decisions. That should be the baseline everywhere and every time. In recent weeks, following the difficult coverage that we have seen, families have contacted us. They want straight answers, but they also want visible action. We should be honest about where culture has fallen short, and we should also be clear about the work that is already under way. Independent, unannounced inspections by Healthcare Improvement Scotland are finding issues on the ground, but they are also driving immediate improvements. That is scrutiny doing exactly what it should.”
“I want to start by acknowledging everyone who has been let down by our maternity or neonatal services. Those families have suffered greatly, and every death or injury is an absolute tragedy. That any concern that is raised is not acted upon is simply not good enough. People who live with such experiences deserve to be heard, believed and shown what is changing because they made the effort to speak up. The Scottish Government has been clear that it will ensure that it learns from every case in order to improve care and strengthen patient safety. I am glad to hear that, but parents and families need to feel that and see it in action, not just hear it in words spoken in the chamber today. I come to this debate with a little bit of my own experience. I have had six babies, and I was lucky enough to be at the birth of my first grandchild.”
“The Scottish Government has also established an assurance board to support NHS Grampian and to provide assurance that an appropriate plan is developed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 3 is from Ash Regan, who joins us remotely. Mental Health Support (Vulnerable Women and Girls) 3.”
“Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that the Scottish Government is committed to putting patient safety at the heart of our NHS service delivery? What conversations has he had with NHS Grampian about its recovery? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask the cabinet secretary to focus his response on the topic of the question that was placed in the Business Bulletin. Neil Gray: The recovery of NHS Grampian’s services has been hindered by the situation with decontamination services, and patient safety remains our top priority in regard to both. I met the chair and chief executive of NHS Grampian in October to discuss the work that the health board is doing to explore and develop a new improvement plan, so that people receive the right care at the right time.”
“The committee heard that increasing those rates would have a significant impact on the availability of legal practitioners who are willing to undertake the work. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to review fee levels. We also echo the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s recommendation that fees should be of such a level as to support a trauma- informed approach. Finally, we urge the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reflect carefully on clawback and unrealistic contributions to costs, because those appear to the committee to currently act as barriers to justice. I reiterate that the evidence showed that people have been waiting far too long for reform, and we ask the Scottish Government to show greater urgency in delivery. 14:42”
“We are strongly of the view that the Scottish Government must pursue reforms with a view to removing financial eligibility tests, to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access civil protection orders. It must also investigate options for ensuring that legal aid is available to a wider selection of domestic abuse cases without means testing. The committee heard about so-called legal assistance deserts. For example, it was highlighted to the committee that Grampian Women’s Aid has had to make 50 to 60 calls in order to find a legal aid solicitor. That is not a new problem, and we ask the Scottish Government to take urgent action to address the situation. A key obstacle to improving the provision of legal aid is the current fee levels for solicitors.”
“Moreover, we consider that all levels of financial eligibility for advice and assistance and civil legal aid should be increased in line with inflation since 2011. I welcome the fact that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to work with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reassess the means-testing arrangements for those schemes and to consider uprating the capital thresholds for both to £16,000, which is the same as for universal credit. We heard calls for financial eligibility requirements to be waived for certain types of case, including those that involve civil protection orders and gender-based violence more generally.”
“We are disappointed to note that the Scottish Government’s current consultation, which builds on its legal aid discussion paper, has not taken into account any of the committee’s recommendations for short-term changes. I turn to the two committees’ areas of common concern. First, on eligibility for civil legal assistance, my committee heard serious concerns about the low financial thresholds for eligibility for advice and assistance. Those thresholds have not increased since 2011, and they include a maximum capital limit of £1,716. It seems inconceivable that someone should be eligible for universal credit but not advice and assistance. We recommend that the financial eligibility limit for advice and assistance be increased to match civil legal aid levels.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute in my capacity as the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I also welcome the report of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and thank the committee for drawing to my committee’s attention its conclusions in so far as they relate to civil legal aid. Recently, my committee published its report on civil legal assistance. In that report, we drew conclusions about the provision of civil legal aid that mirror the conclusions that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee reached. I begin by stressing that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee agreed that it is unsatisfactory that primary legislation has not been introduced in this parliamentary session to reform the civil legal assistance system.”
“It will identify the range of measures that could be practically applied in a local area. It will identify high-impact areas and develop a strategic view as to where and how gulls can be moved on from areas of high impact, and it will provide locally co-ordinated, area-based licensing approaches. That is the beginning of a process, and the funding will help to support that work and get it under way. I have outlined other actions that we will take following the gull summit, and I will continue to consider any other support that is required thereafter.”
“As members can imagine, urban gulls are a hot topic in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. Not long after I was elected, I set up a gull working group with local authorities and experts to share best practice, with the recognition that each community faces different challenges. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. What support can the Scottish Government give to local authorities for the bespoke solutions that are needed? Jim Fairlie: One of the bespoke things that we are looking at is that £100,000 is being immediately made available to assist local authorities to develop area-wide gull-management approaches. The area-wide approach will give a better understanding of gull populations and their movements at a local level.”
“Let us not fall into the trap of making children the scapegoats for wider frustrations. Let us respect their development, respect our teachers and respect the principle that those who are closest to the classroom are best placed to decide what happens in it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 15:39”
“Almost 4,000 staff contributed to the behaviour in Scottish schools research report. The report showed that most pupils are well behaved and dedicated while also highlighting challenges such as misogyny and worsening behaviour in some places, as my colleague Patrick Harvie spoke about. That is exactly why the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was created, bringing together the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, parents, carers and the third sector. It is about partnership, not grabbing headlines. If we want young people to learn healthy communication, resilience and balance in a digital age, the answer cannot be to simply legislate phones out of sight. That will do little to prepare young people for the world beyond the classroom, where digital communication is a daily reality.”
“Local authorities and school leaders know their pupils, staff and environment far better than we ever could in the Parliament, and they are best placed to decide whether a mobile phone policy means a complete ban, restricted use or managed access—and they already have the power to do that. Let us also not pretend that the Government has been idle. Last year, detailed guidance on mobile phones was published, which was designed with input from teachers, unions and educational psychologists. Just a few months ago, that was followed by new guidance on building positive relationships in schools. The guidance is not about leaving schools to fend for themselves—far from it—but it is about equipping them with evidence and support to make the best choices. It is worth remembering the broader context.”
“Both policies are valid because they come from professionals who know their pupils and staff. On the point about exemptions, would that not just create the same admin, policing and management but with fewer powers and more restrictions? The Scottish Government’s approach to empower headteachers and schools to make the decisions that are right for their school communities makes far more sense. Labour would be the first to complain if the Scottish Government swooped in with central diktats on other matters and undermined the professional judgment of teachers.”
“I agree that mobile phones can and do cause distraction. There are times when they contribute to negative behaviour and there is growing evidence that overuse can affect concentration and social interaction. None of us would deny those facts. However, the real question is not whether those are challenges; it is how we can best respond. Just last month, I spoke with a headteacher in my constituency who told me that they had introduced a phones away policy during lessons but that they still allow phones at lunch time. That is because, for some pupils—especially those with additional support needs—access to music or online communication is vital. That flexibility worked for their school. That can be compared to another school in which a complete ban during the whole day is also the right approach.”
“It is important to recognise something that we do not say nearly enough in the Parliament: Scotland has fantastic schools that are led by great teachers and filled with hard-working young people. Too often we talk about education in the Parliament as if our pupils are a problem to be solved, which I find incredibly insulting and frustrating. Childhood and adolescence are not problems; they are very normal stages in human development that are full of learning and growth. Our job is to support that journey, not reduce it to soundbites that paint young people in the worst possible light. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: [Made a request to intervene.] Karen Adam: I have a lot to get into my speech. Labour’s motion calls for a blanket ban on mobile phones in classrooms.”
“There is not a lot of additional time. 15:00”
“Schools have improvised, parents have worried and pupils have paid the price. Today, the Parliament has a choice: we can let schools keep muddling through or we can set a clear expectation that every child in Scotland deserves a calm, phone-free lesson as standard, not as a postcode perk. Our ask today is simple: to make the rules clearer, make the day calmer, give teachers back the time to teach and give pupils the space to learn and flourish. The motion proposes a national phone ban for learners during lessons. Our young people deserve that, and I urge members to support the motion. I move, That the Parliament agrees that mobile phones should be banned for learners in school classrooms. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that, as ever when there are two debates during the afternoon, we are pretty tight for time.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Pam Duncan-Glancy: In the absence of the iPads that the SNP promised, where teachers want to use devices in lessons in schools where bans exist, teachers have the option to say, “Take out your device for this task” for a specific purpose and in a specific period. I am happy to take the intervention. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You do not really have time, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I apologise to Karen Adam, but I cannot take her intervention. With a national ban, the default changes from phones first to learning first. That is what we are asking for. We are asking the Government to take a practical, proportionate step, with a classroom rule being implemented with professional judgment and involving young people. The Government has dithered and delayed.”
“The Government’s assurance board, which oversees that activity, will actively monitor the development and implementation of several NHS Grampian work strands, from improvements in the overall financial position to specific work regarding better patient flow in line with the recommendations that were made in the independent diagnostic report over the summer. I am confident that, through those actions, we will soon have a clear plan to stabilise the system in NHS Grampian and set the right conditions for the necessary longer-term transformational work that will be done under the new chief executive. NHS Operations (Recourse for Patients) 2.”
“I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the issues that it has been facing. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary outline what work the Scottish Government has done and is doing to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to move quickly through the system? Neil Gray: I agree fully with Karen Adam. The whole purpose of the escalation work with NHS Grampian is to ensure that local patients have access to responsive, high-quality, safe and sustainable services. To that end, we are providing enhanced scrutiny and support to ensure that the health board has robust improvement plans in place and implements them effectively.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the UK Government’s energy policy, including licensing decisions and investment priorities, on jobs in Scotland’s offshore energy sector and on progress towards a just transition. (S6O-04989)”
“The work that has been completed so far includes a training network for rural primary care practices, funding for five paramedics to undertake the MSc in rural advanced practice, specific training for dispensing practices and a practitioner-led research award scheme. Funding is in place until April 2026 and NHS Education for Scotland is working closely with officials to establish a plan for the next phase of the centre.”