Seòmar agus comataidhean

The danger with our exit from the EU was that we would lose the co-operation that we were duty bound to have. The framework ensures that we do not have any less co-operation, which is important. Looking forward, the framework and the MOU that sits alongside it ensure that there will be good collaboration not only within the UK but with our European Union partners. That, too, is important.

On the framework, members will be aware—I am sure that it will be in their briefing—that there is the oversight group, which will be really important. Scotland will have representation on that group to ensure that co-operation is being maximised wherever possible. I think that the framework will evolve as it embeds, but the early signs are encouraging.

The framework does not alter the devolved settlement in relation to international obligations or any future negotiations. That is important. Paul O’Kane and I probably have slightly different views on whether Scotland should have more of a role—or, indeed, its own role—in relation to international treaties and obligations. Notwithstanding those differences—we can park them for a minute—the framework does not alter the devolved settlement.

The UK’s fulfilment of international obligations relates largely, though not exclusively, to reserved matters. Where we have a distinct legitimate devolved interest in reserved matters, I believe that the framework provides us with a useful set of tools that gives us the greatest chance of influencing negotiations. The framework process thus far has been really engaging, and, in terms of engagement with the EU and the memorandum of understanding that the UK has signed with the EU, Scotland has been able to represent itself in relation to the ECDC, for example, which is positive.

Ultimately, I cannot promise you that there will always be alignment between what the Scottish Government or, indeed, the Scottish Parliament wants in relation to international obligations and what the UK Government ends up doing. The framework does not alter that significantly.

Paul O’Kane will know that, if there is a chance for me to put on record my concern about the approach that the UK Government is taking, I will not be shy in doing so. I will do that regularly—quite rightly, as my job is to stand up for the interests of the people of Scotland. Equally, when things are working well, I am not shy or reticent about saying that they are working well.

The common framework process has involved really good collaboration. Therefore, I do not envisage that we would get to the stage of dispute resolution in relation to this particular area of the common framework and what it seeks to address—certainly not from the evidence that I have seen thus far. Of course, this is about the future, too. Ultimately, if we could not get agreement—if every lever that we had tried through informal discussion with the UK Government, official level discussion, ministerial level discussion, correspondence and so on, had not worked—that dispute resolution mechanism would be there, and it exists for good reason. However, on the evidence thus far, I do not see that needing to be invoked—certainly not in the short or medium terms.

I know. The point that you make is important. I am genuinely not—[Inaudible.]—focus on the big projects; there is also a question about smaller projects.

In principle, I have no issues with that. I can look at what we publish at the moment, to see whether it would meet your expectations, and we can have a discussion about that.

In my letter to the committee, I referenced in some detail alcohol and drug partnership income and spending for 2021. We intend to publish the information once the analysis is complete. We will, of course, provide the committee with that publication. It will provide a level of detail on the income and spending of local alcohol and drug services, including what is provided in addition to Scottish Government funding.

If that does not provide you with the level of detail that you expect, I will be open to having a further conversation about how we can provide that.

I am a great believer in social prescribing, as is the Government. I can check the evidence and evaluation that we publish on social prescribing and provide Emma Harper with more information.

Our programme for government includes the commitment that, by 2026, every general practice will have access to a mental health and wellbeing service, and that there will be funding for 1,000 additional dedicated staff who will help to grow community mental health resilience and to direct social prescribing. I think that that will make a massive difference to access to social prescribing. I know from the community link worker in my constituency, who does an incredible job of reaching out to the third sector and other support organisations, that help with social prescribing has made a big difference to a number of my constituents.

I will look at what we have published or will publish on evaluating that and come back to the committee on it, via the convener. I agree entirely with the general point that Ms Harper made.

I think that I caught just the end of that question. In essence, the outcomes in the national performance framework are a consistent thread that runs throughout our work. They inform our planning across the board.

I think that David Torrance asked about prominence and how spending decisions are influenced. In that regard, the national performance framework goes through everything that we think about. Every time we make a spending decision, we look at the outcomes in the national performance framework and other frameworks, including those that David Torrance mentioned. The national performance framework is our guiding framework for the whole of Government. As I said, it is a consistent thread that runs through all our work and informs our planning across the board.

Part of it would be to give more financial compensation to those sectors that have been hit, and hit hard. Again, I will not pre-empt what the First Minister will say in the next couple of hours, but even with the current position, there is no doubt that not only the hospitality sector, but the events and cultural sectors and others have been hit hard. If we had some greater financial certainty, we would be able to act in the way that we thought was in the best interests of Scotland.

I note again that that is not just an SNP or Scottish Government position; the Welsh Government, which is led by a different political party, has said something similar. The appropriate decisions for our countries should not be constrained by whether we get additional resource from the UK Government. It should be the case that we take the decisions that are in the best interests of health in Scotland and then the funding flows from the Treasury in respect of those decisions.

We are continuing to bolster test and protect and the vaccination programme as key foundation blocks in our fight against the virus. They are always important and they are being adequately funded. However, to give just one example, I note that we had to push the UK Government really hard for it to extend the contract for the Glasgow Lighthouse lab, which has done an incredible job. The contract was due to run out in March 2022 and we were getting anecdotal evidence that people were going to be looking for other jobs because they had no job security. The UK Government has now moved on that and extended the contract to September 2022, but we should not have to keep pushing it in order to get a level of certainty.

Forgive me—I might have misheard. Did you ask about the place-based community-led approach?

I suspect that Ms Mochan and I are at one in our belief in the importance of the place-based community-led approach. We will bring together a range of work that is focused on supporting local-level action to improve health and wellbeing and to reduce health inequalities with the long-term preventative focus that we have spoken about. We want to support health and social care services to work as part of wider systems to co-create wellbeing locally. That will enable our health and social care providers to play their role as anchor institutions in community wealth building.

There are many good examples of that, such as the joint pilot programme that started earlier last year—the link up the Gallatown project, with Kirkcaldy YMCA and NHS Fife—in which people are provided with training and placement opportunities in a local hospital. Many of them have gone on to secure employment. I referred to the development at Parkhead, which is another good example and will be our single biggest investment in a health and social care centre. The centre will bring together community services that are currently located in, I think, nine other sites. I have spoken to a doctor at one of them who is part of the deep end project, which brings together 100 general practices in the most deprived areas, and she can absolutely see the value of the work that we want to do on that.