 The first item of business is portfolio questions. We start with rural affairs, land reform and islands. I invite members to ask a supplementary question to press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question. Members will be aware now of the new time limits, which will be rigorously applied to brevity and questions and responses. We will be welcome. 1. Christine Grahame To ask the Scottish Government how the measures in its programme for government 2023-24 will support the rural economy in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency. All Scotland-wide commitments in our ambitious PFG contribute to our rural economy, and there are a range of commitments within that that relate specifically to rural industries supporting jobs and businesses in constituencies such as Christine Grahame's. Those include paying Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million of payments beginning this month, investing £1 million in skills development for woodland creation and in nature in peatland restoration, and businesses and communities in the Midlothian, Tweeddale and Lauderdale area will also benefit from our PFG commitment to support the ambitions of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region to develop and implement their regional economic prosperity framework. Christine Grahame I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Yesterday, of course, highlighted the debate on the contribution of our farming sector to our economy. Can I ask, given that many farmers are not as young as they used to be, what support is being given to encourage young people into the sector? First of all, I am delighted to be able to update Parliament this afternoon that, as promised in this year's programme for government, we have now started making our payments to farmers and crofters Two weeks ahead of schedule, initial payments worth approximately £288 million are now being paid into over 13,000 businesses all across Scotland, including in Christine Grahame's constituency. Unlike in England, we are ensuring that stability by maintaining direct payments, and in the coming year we will be paying Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million to support actions to produce food. However, Christine Grahame also rightly mentions and importantly mentions new entrants to the industry, and that is why we have another commitment within our programme for government that commits us to working with them to develop new support for new entrants going forward. Question 2, Donald Cameron. Can we have Mr Cameron's microphone? Could you perhaps take your card out and reinsert it, please, Mr Cameron? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I refer to my register of interests, both in terms of crofting and the fact that I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates? To ask the Scottish Government for what reason, its programme for government 2023-24 did not include a commitment to a crofting bill. The programme for government 2023-24 commits the Scottish Government to developing and consulting on proposals to reform crofting law. That is a key and necessary part of the process to develop and then introduce a bill, and we remain committed to doing so in this parliamentary term. Donald Cameron. Cabinet Secretary, I may be aware that crofting reform of some sort has been pledged by this Government in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2022 and now in 2023. Yet, in that time, there has been little movement despite calls for reform from crofting communities. What assurances can she give these communities that the most recent pledge will not end up in the long grass like the many pledges that have gone before it? I would disagree with the member because we committed to introducing a crofting bill this parliamentary term, and that is exactly what we have set out to do. In order to do that and consider the proposals that have been brought forward previously, we reintroduced and re-established the crofting bill group, and that has met 11 times so far with further meetings planned so that we can further develop those proposals. As I set out in my initial response, there is a process that we have to go through in developing legislation. That is why we have committed to introducing a consultation on the measures that we will be bringing forward for a bill. I look forward to seeing the bill that the minister has confirmed. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me, however, that it is quite difficult with respect for opposition parties to cast themselves as champions for crofting while they are content by their silence to allow their colleagues at Westminster to leave crofters totally in the dark over the future of ELFAS funding? Yes, I would agree with that. The imposed Brexit that we have had forced on us in Scotland means that rural Scotland in particular has been badly let down, because ELFAS or the funding to support those who need it most, farming and crofting in the most marginal areas that we have in Scotland might not matter to the UK Government, because after all it chose in the last cap not to provide that funding in England, but with over 80 per cent of all land in Scotland being in less favourable areas, it really does matter to us and particularly to our crofters as well. Now, multi-year certainty has been replaced with absolutely no commitment for funding beyond 2025, and that is as a result of the choices that were made by the UK Government and its refusal to deliver on its own public commitment to engage meaningfully on future budgets. The cabinet secretary will be aware that a crofting bill was promised in the last Parliament. The problems with crofting were caused by the previous bill, and we desperately need a bill to put right what was done wrong in that bill, so will she either repeal the previous bill or come forward immediately with a new bill because this is a dead hand on crofting? All of the issues that the member has highlighted and that have been raised previously are being considered by the crofting bill group. Again, it is our intention to provide that clarity in law to tidy up the current legislation and better regulate crofting. As I said in my previous responses, the crofting bill group was formally re-established in May of last year, and it is considering right now at least 50 different issues to determine which of those should feature in a bill that we bring forward. Of course, there will be that wider engagement and consultation on this and due course, and I look forward to engaging with members across the chamber as we develop this legislation. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of its proposed land reform bill. As set out in the programme for government, we are committed to introducing a land reform bill to further improve transparency of land ownership, help ensure large-scale land holdings delivered in the public interest and empower communities by providing more opportunities to own land and to have more say in how land in that area is used. The bill will also include measures to modernise agricultural holdings. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. My constituents on the island of Grape Bernara have been fighting for a number of years to buy their land from an uncooperative and entirely absent landowner who often leaves correspondence unanswered for months on end or ignores it altogether. Can the cabinet secretary outline whether there will be any provisions in the upcoming bill to prevent absentee landowners from delaying matters in this way? I am aware of the issues that Alasdair Allan raises in his question and I am also aware that he has supported his constituents for a number of years and indeed has led a member's debate on this issue and on the community group's situation. I absolutely understand and appreciate the frustration that I know both he and the people on Grape Bernara must feel at the situation that they find themselves in. I know that in Scotland of course we do have landowners who are focused on making a positive impact on their local communities and they work with them to do that. Of course that is not universal and I accept that there is more that the Government can do in this area, which is why our land reform bill proposals will seek to strengthen the obligations on landowners to comply with the land rights and responsibilities statement as well as looking to introduce compulsory land management plans. Trump international Gulf links in Aberdeensia has long faced opposition from local residents concerned about the social and environmental impact of the development. Under the Government's current land reform proposals a 560 hectare holding, like Trump international, would not be considered large and so would not be subject to a public interest test. Does the minister agree that land of this size should be accountable to local communities and the wider public? I know that the member is looking to bring forward proposals in relation to this and that the consultation for Mercedes Villalba's draft member's bill is just closed. Of course I look forward to fully considering that in the detail of her proposals. However we are not proposing a cap on land ownership because we are not persuaded that a cap is supported by the adequate evidence and a cap is unlikely to be compatible with the European convention on human rights as well. So these are the really vital considerations that we have to take cognisance of. So instead that's why our proposals seek to ultimately empower communities by providing more opportunities to own land by receiving that prior notification of impending sales or transfers as well as having more say in how land in their area is used. And our proposals will of course be fully compliant with ECHR and the terms of the devolved settlement too. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the greater use of farm-to-fork methods to encourage domestic food production. The Scottish Government is of course hugely supportive of greater use of farm-to-fork methods both to encourage domestic food production and consumption. As an example of that, £490,000 worth of funding is being provided through the Food for Life programme over the course of this financial year so that we have more locally sourced healthier food in schools as well as funding a Glasgow-based pilot on expanding the principles of the Food for Life programme into the wider public sector. And I think it's of course important and fantastic to be able to talk about some of these issues as well as the debate that we had yesterday and to discuss food and drink in Scotland to really celebrate our superb natural order during the current food and drink fortnight. I do agree that this is an important issue. So given that the European commission has softened its approach to gene editing technology over the summer, will the cabinet secretary not recognise, as the Scottish Conservatives do, that gene editing technology provides the best security for domestic food production in Scotland? I know that, based on the debate that we had about this in food and drink yesterday just in the chamber, the Tories seem to think that gene editing solves all the problems in relation to food production and food security going forward. However, the Scottish Government we're not in a rush to legislate in these issues as the UK Government was just to prove a point of difference and we have to fully consider all the factors in relation to this. Now that means having that discussion with our farmers, with scientists and importantly with our consumers as well before we decide how to move forward. And of course we will be looking at what's happening in the EU as that goes forward too. But unlike the UK Government, we like to take the time to consider these proposals fully and understand what the implications would be for Scotland. Very briefly, Karen Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the free trade agreements which threaten to harm domestic production and flood our market with imported goods of lesser quality, I find the question quite ironic. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that, given the Scottish Government's commitment to active farming and food production, the best thing the Tories could do to help ensure domestic food production is lobby their colleagues in the UK Government about funding clarity for the agricultural sector post 2025? As soon as possible, cabinet secretary. Absolutely, because right now we have absolutely no clarity on any long-term funding and what that's going to look like beyond 2025. Currently, the Treasury has only provided yearly allocations with no commitment beyond that. We need to know whoever is in power at Westminster how much funding we're going to have to support farming as well as other rural priorities, so I absolutely share the frustration that's been expressed by our farmers and food producers over the lack of future budget clarity. We also need a fair funding settlement that's not going to be cut arbitrarily from year to year by Westminster and to be able to create that multi-annual framework. We would, of course, get all of that if Scotland was independent and back in the EU. 6. Liz Smith To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has made in response to the protractive start to the 2023 grain harvest. The Scottish Government supports farmers in preparing for, responding and adapting to challenging conditions over the course of the season by ensuring that timely and effective advice and support is available to informed decision making. That includes the SRUC crop protection report, which offers online free of charge regular analysis by region of current issues for a range of crops. That includes fortnightly local reports on the progress of the grain harvest over the season, which aids farmers in making informed decisions for their crops. It also includes the farm advisory service, which facilitates access to largely free, high-quality, generic and bespoke advice for the agricultural sector. Liz Smith Thank you. The cabinet secretary will know, however, that that information is showing that has not been an easy start to the 2023 grain harvest, not just because of the delays, but because of poor quality in some crops. That's particularly true of Barley in my area, which is causing concern not to farmers, but to the Scotch whisky industry. In light of the fact that we don't have any clarity about the agricultural bill, can the cabinet secretary reassure those grain farmers that they will be supported? Liz Smith I wouldn't agree with the member's statement that there's no clarity on the agricultural bill. As we've previously committed to and I still maintain that commitment, we will be introducing an agriculture bill this year where we will continue to support our farmers and crofters. As we have done in the past, we will continue to support our food producers with direct payments. Again, it's a commitment that we've previously made and that I stand by. Over decades, precision crop breeding has led to modern varieties of cereal crops, delivering higher yields and more resistant to a wide range of environmental stresses. However, the time needed for development of the new varieties takes time. With clear signs that the EU will change its position on gene editing, when will the Scottish Government commit to a policy that will allow our world-leading institutions like the Hutton to adopt GEE as a crop breeding tool that will bring huge benefits to our farming communities? Can you set out the timescales for that discussion to take place? Again, we fully support innovation when it comes to our agricultural sector and, as Finlay Carson is aware, if he names some of the institutes there, we have world-leading institutes doing world-leading work and science in that area, too. I've outlined in a previous response on gene editing where we stand with that at the moment. Of course, we're carefully considering what happens elsewhere in the EU, but we've also got to understand the wider ramifications and fully consider that before taking any steps forward, whether that could affect future trade and again making sure that we're engaging everyone in that conversation when we do that. Question 7, Ben Macpherson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of the Scottish Land Commission's work on compulsory sale orders and land value capture. The programme for government that was published last week reiterates our commitment to consider the justification for and practical operation of compulsory sales orders and implement new infrastructure levy regulations by spring 2026. That levy would provide local authorities with an additional mechanism for securing developer contributions alongside planning obligations. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and welcome the commitment in the programme for government and that progress. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the housing crisis that we have here in Edinburgh and part of that is due to the extremely high cost of land. Therefore, I would encourage the cabinet secretary to continue to work with her Government colleagues whether that is on the vacant and derelict land fund and the housing minister and to continue to engage with City of Edinburgh Council and Parliamentarians here in the capital to work together to unlock as much of the unused land and to reduce the price of land here in the capital. The member raises some really important points within his question there. I would just want to outline that since 2021 Edinburgh City Council have received three awards from the low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme, totaling just under £2.5 million to support that affordable housing and public realm in Granton and Greendikes. The low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme really tries to support those local and ambitious proposals to tackle that persistent vacant and derelict land. Supporting place-based regeneration and the 20-minute neighbourhood aspirations is part of our just transition to net zero. Of course, together with my Government colleagues, we will be happy to engage with him and other members representing the city region and the council to see how we can take forward and take action on those issues. Land value capture and compulsory sales are obviously complex issues. Any policy in this area will have to be detailed and flexible to recognise the vast range of circumstances where such powers might be considered. If the Scottish Government does take that forward, can the minister assure us that such compulsory sales will be a last resort and that the sale will only be permitted to buyers with a fully developed and funded plan for land use? I thank the member for that question. We are obviously not at the stage yet of taking those kinds of decisions because, as the member rightly touches on this, this is a really complex area, which is why we need to undertake the work on it and why we set that out in our programme for government. I am aware that I have a meeting up coming with the member to be happy to discuss those issues and how we intend to take them forward. 17 per cent of Scotland's population is made up of people living in rural areas, yet last week the First Minister announced that he will be allocating just 10 per cent of new funding for building affordable homes to rural areas. Does the cabinet secretary accept that this is an outrageous disparity and will they push back on his plan to underfund rural housing? It is this Government that is committed to building more houses than any previous Government before us or any Government anywhere else across the Isles. I recognise that the member raises an important point about the availability of housing. When I travel to other rural parts of Scotland to our islands, housing is a key issue that is mentioned there and the need for more housing. That is why the housing minister has been working on developing a remote, rural and island housing action plan, which will be coming forward to look at how we can address and tackle those issues, whether working with the third sector, working with other enterprises, with business, because the good work is happening right across the country at the moment, but it is how we really focus on that and drive that house building forward. To ask the Scottish Government what cross-government consideration there has been regarding the use of tunnels to improve connectivity between the islands. Transport Scotland regularly engages with colleagues across the Scottish Government in the islands, planning, housing, population and infrastructure teams in the context of improving transport connectivity to and from Scotland's many islands. I recently visited Shetland, Orkney and Maldry, during which I had several discussions on the matter of tunnels and fixed links, replacing existing ferry services. While transport is a devolved matter, I have just this week had a discussion on the replacement of the free rail ferry with the UK minister, Richard Holden MP. Those discussions did not extend to fixed links to our islands. In July, Shetland Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister, asking to meet about tunnels and other matters. A date has been arranged for the council leader to meet Alistair Jack in London. Has the First Minister responded, and if not, why not? I was very pleased to meet with Shetland island council myself in August and discussed those matters as far as the First Mrs is aware. My understanding is that, in September, Shetland island council committed to spending £700,000 considering the business case for four potential new fixed links within the Shetlands. They have direct responsibility. In terms of the invitation to the First Minister, I understand that it was later in September that I may be wrong about that. I am not responsible for his diary, but I understand that an invitation is being actively considered, and I am sure that there will be a response as you might expect in due course. I am Beatrice Wishart. With the growing space, salmon and renewable energy sectors in Shetland, and the reported growing interest of the UK Government in meeting with Shetland island council about short subsea tunnels, will the Scottish Government commit a date to meet with Shetland island council specifically to discuss tunnels? First of all, I thank the member for hosting my meeting with the L announced tunnel action group when I visited. At that same time in Shetland, I also met with Shetland island council and with Sestrans and the issue of fixed links precisely because of the reasons that were set out. The growing economic links were part of that agenda item back in August. Those discussions will continue. I have also indicated to the members that I met in Shetland that Transport Scotland is ready to help and assist with any of the business cases that they are currently putting together. That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. I will allow a brief pause to allow the front benches to change. The next item of business is portfolio questions on NHS recovery, health and social care. I can advise the chamber that questions 6 and 8 have been grouped together and therefore supplementaries on those questions will be taken after both the questions have been asked and answered. As ever, I invite anybody looking to ask a supplementary question to press the request to speak buttons during the relevant question, and I call question number one, Karen Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government in light of the First Minister's commitment in the programme for government 2023-24 to publish a new delivery plan for mental health and wellbeing, what it is doing to improve pathways to diagnosis for neurodivergent children. Following publication of the mental health and wellbeing strategy in June 2023, we will publish a delivery plan later this autumn, which will set out the steps that we will take to improve support for children with neurodevelopmental support needs. As set out in the strategy, we are committed to working in partnership to strengthen support and care pathways for people who are requiring neurodevelopmental support. To do that, we will build on work to implement the neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people, including five tests of change across Scotland, working closely with partners to share learning and to improve services and support. I thank the First Minister for that answer. With personal experience and constituent feedback, highlighting often gatekeeping at what should be access points onto a diagnostic pathway, how is the Scottish Government ensuring unimpeded access and support for neurodivergent individuals at key points such as education and community health so that they can uphold their dignity and prevent additional mental health issues? It is important for me to say in response that a diagnosis is not required for children and young people to receive support. The neurodevelopmental specification makes clear that support should be in place to meet the child or young person's requirements when they need it at the earliest opportunity, rather than being dependent on a formal diagnosis. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and should be quickly and easily accessible. We are going to continue to work with key partners from local authorities, education and health to implement the neurodevelopmental specification right across Scotland. Minister, the lower unit in Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital provided a daycare and outpatient support to children and young people with autism spectrum disorders, but it closed almost a decade ago. Families in the north-east are crying out for dedicated post-diagnostic support such as the lower unit. What action is the Scottish Government taking with health boards and local authorities to ensure that support is in place? The member will be aware that when we are approaching this issue, we intend to support children and families to access support and services that meet their needs, using the getting-it-right-for-every-child approach, the GERFEC approach. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and should be very quickly and easily accessible. There are a number of different models around the country. As I said, we are exploring four or five tests of change around the country at the end of October. We are coming together to share the learning from those tests of change and to make sure that we can implement and roll out those tests of change all over the country. Question 2, Sue Webber. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the number of alcohol-specific deaths in 2022. Mr Eleanor Whitham. In Parliament on 7 September, I outlined the Government's plan to reduce alcohol harms and deaths in response to the alcohol-specific deaths in 2022, and committed to a debate to the plan in more detail. It includes evaluating minimum unit pricing and alcohol marketing consultation responses. We will publish the recommendations of Public Health Scotland's review on alcohol-beef interventions and ask Public Health Scotland to investigate reductions in referral numbers to services. Approximately £113 million is available to support initiatives that respond to local needs underpinned by the forthcoming treatment standards and workforce action plan to improve quality and capacity. Minister, in April it was revealed to me via a written question from yourself that the Scottish Government had cut alcohol and drug recovery services by £19 million in 2022-23. Now that we have seen a 14-year high in alcohol deaths and Scotland remains the drug death capital of Europe, does the minister accept that those cuts have had a devastating effect on people suffering with drug and alcohol misuse? Will the minister commit to restoring funding to those services in 2023-24? It is really important to point out that, in my response to the question that the member raised, we outlined that there had been no reduction in the funding that was being made available to alcohol and drug partnerships. Indeed, the funding being made available to them had increased year on year. Last year we had £106.8 million available to alcohol and drug partnerships. This year we have £113 million available to those same partnerships. What we asked those partnerships to do was to make sure that they used their reserves appropriately and then drew down on the funding. However, that funding has then been moved forward and used in other ways within alcohol and drug partnerships. There has been no overall reduction in funding, but I will bring back to the chamber a debate where we will discuss a cohesive plan. I recognise that members across the chamber are looking to understand what the Government is doing to tackle alcohol-specific deaths and alcohol harm, so I will do that. The Scottish Government's world-leading minimum unit pricing policy has been shown to have a welcome impact on tackling alcohol-related harm. Can the minister provide any update as to on-going work to review the price level? Work on reviewing the level of a minimum unit pricing is under way as the impact of MUP is connected to the unit price. It is important that we have a robust evidence space to support any decision on the change of the level of MUP. As I outlined in the programme for government, we will publish our final report on the operation and the effect of MUP in the Scottish Parliament later this month, alongside a consultation on its future, both in terms of price and the continuation of the scheme. Question 3 was not lodged. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Fife and what was discussed. Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Fife, to discuss matters of importance to local people. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. One current NHS Fife issue concerns the new medical centre for Lokelley. Can the cabinet secretary advise, further to his most welcome visit last week, whether he recognises that Lokelley has waited an awful long time and that its new medical centre deserves to be treated as a priority? I am grateful to Annabelle Ewing for her question and for her invitation to visit the health centre in Lokelley last week. I want to put on record my thanks to those in the local community and the staff within the local health centre for the time and engagement that I had with them during my visit. There is no doubt in my view that the health centre needs to be replaced. As I outlined to Annabelle Ewing in the local community, the health centre was not within the infrastructure investment plan for 2021-26. Of course, alongside that, we are having to undertake a review of our capital expenditure due to a cut in our capital budget by the UK Government and the impact of construction inflation, which has pushed up the cost of existing projects very significantly. However, I assure the member that we will continue to look at what can be done because I recognise the need for the health centre in Lokelley to be replaced. I was a land over the summer that NHS Fife reported a £7.9 million revenue overspend, only two months into the fiscal year. I would be concerned if attempts to bring that overspend back under control resulted in the loss of staffing, especially when the waiting lists are just enormous. What steps is the Government taking to protect services in Fife? For example, one of the actions that we are taking to protect and improve services in Fife is the construction of our new national treatment centre that is delivering additional capacity to the Kingdom of Fife and for patients in that area, which is a significant investment that will improve services going forward. I assure the member that where we have boards that are projecting overspends going forward that we provide them with tailored support and engage with them to try to manage the financial pressures that they are facing. However, I hope that the member will recognise by the creation of the NTC in Fife. It is a clear demonstration of this Government's commitment to improving services in Fife. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to urgently address the reported maintenance backlog in GP practices. Over the next four years, we will invest £73 billion in health and care services and a further £1.3 billion in capital funding, doubling our investment in maintenance and equipment replacement to support their recovery, sustainability and reform. That is in addition to the annual primary medical services allocation, which includes £68 million for the provision of maintenance of GP practice estate. The Scottish Government will continue to work with boards to address financial pressures across the system. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. He will know that the current maintenance backlog in GP surgeries stands at £78.5 million, which is already over the budget that he has set out. He knows that there is a shortage of GPs, primary care budgets have been cut and only 5 per cent of doctors in a recent BMA survey thought that their practice was sustainable. With services already stretched, can I ask the cabinet secretary what more he can do to set aside capital funding over the next three years to repair GP practices? I am not entirely sure that the figure that Jackie Baillie quotes is the correct figure, because within the data that he is using, I suspect that there is a range of additional costs in that, which are about lifetime recurring costs, which are normal for capital projects. As I have already outlined, we are in a situation where the Scottish Government's capital budget has been cut by the UK Government, which has a direct impact on how much we can invest in our capital estate. Alongside that, we are also having to deal with what is a very significant increase in capital project costs as a result of construction inflation. We will continue to do everything that we can to invest in capital projects, but there are significant challenges that the capital review is presently being taken forward by the DfFM in order to look at what further action we will have to take to address the financial pressures that we are facing in our capital budgets. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported plans by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to reduce the number of community link workers embedded in GP practices in deprived areas of Glasgow by one third due to Scottish Government funding cuts. I am very concerned about the risks to link workers in Glasgow from April 2024 as they provide a vital service in disadvantaged areas. My officials are engaging with the health and social care partnership on its plans for primary care in 2024-25 and exploring all options to avoid a reduction in posts. I received several letters from deep end practices and have met with one in Glasgow, telling me how invaluable community link workers are. Those cuts are a direct threat to the stability of the practices themselves and the loss of community link workers will have a severe impact on the most vulnerable patients in our poorest communities. The SNP made a manifesto commitment to increase community link workers in GP surgeries and promised investment in practices in disadvantaged areas. Why are we seeing the opposite and will the Scottish Government ensure that those cuts are reversed? Unfortunately, Mr Gohan is actually incorrect. Those are not a result of Scottish Government budget cuts because the funding for community link workers comes from the primary care improvement fund. That fund still stands at £190 million. The issue that Glasgow's health and social care partnership has is that it has gone beyond the funding that was provided to them in the delivery of community link workers that they are no longer able to sustain. He may be aware that we actually stepped in and provided an extra £1.3 million this year in order to protect posts in this financial year and we are continuing to engage with the health and social care partnership to make sure that we have a sustainable position to support what are invaluable workers working in some of the most challenging GP practices in the country. Question 8 from Paul Suni, who joins us remotely. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the 2021 SNP manifesto commitment to expand on the community link worker programme. Due to difficult decisions during the emergency budget review, recruitment of additional roles to support community mental health resilience and ensure every general practice has access to a dedicated mental health and wellbeing service was not commenced. However, we have already prioritised significant investment to build primary care mental health capacity through action 15 and the primary care improvement fund. Over 540 whole-time equivalent primary care mental health workers have been recruited through these. We remain committed to improving mental health service provision in primary care settings. As Dr Gohani mentioned, the proposed reduction in community link worker posts in Glasgow will be felt most acutely by deprived communities in the city. Last week's programme for government committed to ensuring that services such as the link worker programme can respond to local needs in the year ahead, but link workers and GP practices are facing uncertainty in the year. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to simply pass the buck. Will the cabinet secretary commit to getting around the table with the Glasgow city health and social care partnership and the GMB trade union to ensure that link worker provision is maintained at its current level and can be funded more sustainably in the longer term? As I already mentioned, in response to Mr Gohani's question, we are already engaging with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand their plans for the primary care improvement fund and will continue to engage with them in order to try to address the issues that they face with community link workers. I recognise the important value that they have and we want to make sure that they are maintained in order to support GP practices in some of our most deprived communities. I met GPs in Easterhouse this week in my Glasgow province constituency who expressed deep concern at proposed reductions to the hugely valuable community link worker programme. The highlighted reductions in GP workload and in prescriptions issued as a consequence of the work undertaken by the link workers. They also highlighted a carbon cost as prescriptions are one of the health services' biggest carbon footprints. Those reductions are a false economy at a time when we should be moving towards preventative medicine. Has the Scottish Government done any assessment of the additional costs in terms of GP time or additional prescriptions and, indeed, a carbon footprint that would arise from those proposals? We carried out such an assessment on general practices all the wider system. However, we recognise the important value that community link workers have as part of the multidisciplinary team in primary care settings. That is why we take the issues that are highlighted by members around the potential impact on community link workers in Glasgow very seriously and why we have already started a process of engagement with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand how they plan to use the investment that we are providing them with around the primary care improvement fund. However, I would also underline the point that we have already stepped in to provide financial support to the health and social care partnership to allow them to continue at those posts within this financial year. It is important that there is a partnership that has a sustainable financial pathway to supporting those posts. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to invest in community midwifery services to ensure that they are consistently delivered in areas of need rather than in centralised and often hard-to-access locations. We remain committed to ensuring that maternity services continue to be developed in a flexible and innovative way, recognising local population needs and geographic challenges. Over the past five years, the Scottish Government has invested over £25 million to support implementation of the best start programme, which includes recommendations for continuity of care and the delivery of community hubs. We also published the continuity of care and local delivery of care implementation framework, which is designed to assist NHS board implementation. That will be based on local needs assessment, viability and scope of potential impact hubs. Community midwives also deliver care in women's homes as necessary. I thank the minister for that answer. I have met with midwives across South Scotland region, and what is clear to me is that there is now significant pressure on midwifery professionals' ability to deliver regular, high-quality community-based services to those most in need. Is the Government's lack of a proper education and workforce strategy for midwives and the Government's inability to support rural health boards with high numbers of vacancies contributing to those pressures? Will they accept that back and set out in full the action that they can take, which will ensure that midwives are supported to provide community-based services in areas most in need? I thank the member for that question. A couple of weeks ago, I met a number of midwives across Scotland at their conference, and it was heartening to hear the progress that the best start programme has created within midwifery. We have also got the national midwifery's task force, which we work closely with. I know that the member has written to me on other subjects, and I am happy to meet with that. Perhaps we can cover that in that meeting as well. Continuity of carer was a key recommendation of the Scottish Government's best start plan to reshape paternity and neonatal services with a vision of relationship-based continuity of carer, tailored to the individual's needs, and delivered as close to home as possible. Can the minister provide any updates as to the Scottish Government's work to progress that recommendation? All boards continue to work towards implementation of continuity of carer following a pause during Covid-19. We have reconvened the best start leads group and have held learning events and deep-dive sessions to support boards with the implementation of continuity of carer, the most recent being on 30 August. In addition, we have written out to boards asking them to continue to prioritise roll-out of continuity with a particular focus on socially complex women and families, and women with poorer maternity outcomes. Boards will report back to us on how they are progressing with that work. That concludes portfolio questions on NHS recovery, health and social care. There will be a brief pause to allow front benches to change before we move on to the next item of business.