³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have engaged directly with the RCN, its leadership and its lay committee on many points since the decision was taken. With regard to the perceived delay, it was an issue on which I understood that there were very strong feelings from colleagues within the trade union movement, and I engaged with them to hear their perspective before I came to a decision. I took my time to come to that decision, because I recognised the strength of feeling on the matter, but also because of what I was being told and the advice that I was being given on ensuring that we safely implemented the commitment to reduce the working week.

There was no agreement in place about how we would arrive at the 36 hours. Given that the commitment in the pay deal was to get to 36 hours, I believe that I am implementing that deal by getting to 36 hours as of next April. I also believe that I am doing it in the responsible way, by having an implementation plan that takes place over the course of this year and that involves local area partnerships, the Scottish terms and conditions committee and the national trade union representative body. We will see draft plans coming through in May and confirmed plans from boards in October, and that will ensure that our approach to implementation guarantees that 36 hours will be arrived at in April of next year.

I absolutely understand what has been said, and I have engaged on the matter with almost all the relevant trade unions—I still have some to come—but, as I have said, this is Government delivering on the pay deal. We have not reneged. I understand the perception of the phasing of all of this and how people thought that it was going to be implemented, but there was no agreement as to how that would be done from Government. Therefore, I believe that we are delivering on the agreement that we set out in the pay deal two years ago.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the committee. I will briefly set out the reasons for the amendments to the National Health Service (Common Staffing Method) (Scotland) Regulations.

The amendments, which are relatively technical in nature, largely take account of changes that are linked to the implementation of the reduced working week for agenda for change staff. The first half-hour reduction in the working week for those staff was implemented on 1 April last year. It is clearly important that the staffing tools that are provided for under the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 are adjusted to reflect the new definition of whole-time equivalent working hours. Further amendments will be required at the point at which we deliver the 36-hour working week, on 1 April 2026.

I reiterate for the avoidance of any doubt that the Scottish Government is delivering on its commitment to implement the reduced working week by 1 April 2026. I look forward to staff feeling the full benefit of that change. A clear delivery plan is being set out to give confidence regarding its delivery.

As part of the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019, the common staffing method sets out a process, including the use of tools and the consideration of a range of other factors, to determine appropriate staffing levels. Those tools will need to be updated and supplemented periodically, and corresponding updates to secondary legislation will be required. The tools provide a useful source of information to support local decision making, and they form part of a wider set of systems and processes that were introduced by the 2019 act to support effective workforce planning.

To be clear, the intention is not to prescribe what staffing numbers are appropriate or to set recommended ratios at the national level. Such an approach would lack the flexibility to account for local circumstances and would fail to take account of the dynamic nature of healthcare services and the care that they are required to deliver. Instead, the approach is designed to support robust and transparent local decision making.

It is important to recognise that this is the first year following the commencement of the 2019 act and that, as more resources become available and learning takes place in the years to come, we will naturally see incremental improvements in the approach that is taken to compliance. That is not to say that some benefits are not already being felt. I am aware of work that is being done across the system to review staffing establishments as part of broader efforts to ensure that our services are fit for purpose and able to respond to the demands that we can reasonably anticipate. The act has added impetus to those efforts, and we will learn more about health boards’ experience of implementing the legislation when we receive their annual reports in the coming weeks.

I will re-engage with the Parliament later this year to give an update on the Scottish Government’s plans in the light of the evidence that continues to emerge. I will, of course, be happy to take questions from committee members.

No. I will bring in Christopher Thompson in a second. The tools are there to help to inform different parts of the system to ensure that staffing levels are appropriate. There is a duty on local boards to report to ministers on their staffing levels. Ministers must lay those reports and respond to them, which I will do later this year.

Christopher can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that we have had any concerns expressed.

Of course. It has to be. That is why it is important that it is done at a local level, to respond to local need and the local environment, and to the various factors that Emma Harper will be familiar with, given her previous practice, in arriving at what will be required and what a risk assessment would arrive at as the best requirement for that particular shift, or for a longer period of time, depending on the environment that we are talking about. That is why it cannot be prescribed nationally. It has to be delivered locally, but we need the transparency that the legislation provides around how those decisions are taken, and when there has been challenge in the previous year, to arrive at a safe staffing level. The reports will come through in April to determine that, and the ministers will need to respond to those in the Parliament in due course.

They should be, yes, but to supplement that, I reiterate what Emma Harper has just put on the table and my response to Sandesh Gulhane—I cannot prejudge what will be in the reports. I will see the boards’ decisions and the risk assessments and other factors that they have used to determine what the staffing establishment should look like. When there have been issues, that needs to be clearly communicated in the reports that come through to ministers.

To add to Mr Whittle’s point, he will be aware that HIS now routinely inspects maternity and neonatal services. The first inspection is under way and we expect the reports on that in May.

In the light of what we are picking up through the boards’ reviews and other areas of learning, we will interact with boards that have a responsibility to make sure that they are honouring what they should be and providing safe staffing.

I will need to defer to Christopher on that.

We support alcohol and drug partnerships to deliver some of those services. Obviously, our health services are there to deliver, and we have provided increased funding to our health boards and our local authority partners to ensure that they are providing services.

We have already referenced the support that is provided through the Corra Foundation to ensure that community and voluntary organisations are able to respond. The organisations in the community and voluntary sector are trusted and have a wide reach—they can reach much deeper into communities than statutory services can—and the role that they play has to be acknowledged. I certainly acknowledge that, and my commitment to funding those community organisations is clear.

If there are examples of where we need to do more in local areas, or if there is more that we need to do at a national level, I want to hear about that. We would always consider funding for services where the evidence is clear that they are helping to meet a particular demand.

There is not a huge amount of greater detail that I can go into. The work that the improvement hubs will deliver is obvious, but I note that Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s co-ordinating role and its work on ensuring that the pathways are working well are well established, too. As I have said, I do not have a huge amount of detail that I can go into or anything that I can go into in any greater depth—I do not know whether Laura Zeballos or Maggie Page wishes to add anything.

I thank Ms Haughey for raising the issue and the people’s panel for its work on illuminating this as an issue that needs to be addressed. I heard the gentleman on the previous panel make the point that he had not been aware of the naloxone programme but that, when he did become aware of it, he wanted to be involved. That speaks volumes about not just the powerful effect of the naloxone roll-out itself, but the need to ensure that we are not complacent and think that everybody has an understanding of the roll-out, as colleagues around the table do, and the fact that it has gone to various statutory organisations as well as others.

We will consider what more we can do to have an awareness-raising campaign and what might be effective in that respect, and I am happy to come back to the committee with our consideration of how that could work. The very illumination of the issue through the work of the people’s panel will be helpful, as will, I hope, our discussion here. I believe that all of us around the table have agency in being able to raise awareness. Mr Sweeney and the convener said that they had gone through training—indeed, Mr Sweeney was able to say how quick that training was. If we use our own agency as local leaders, that will be just as important as any Government or Public Health Scotland-led campaign in this space.

It is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to carry out its investigation. I hope that it will do so with the sensitivity that the people’s panel and the joint committee have brought to this emotional issue. I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee will explore the evidence and the efficacy of the approach, as well as hearing the testimony of those with lived and living experience who have fought so hard for the facility to be established and who have shaped the way that the service is being run and those who work in it. I hope that those views are taken into consideration and that we have an evidence-based outcome. Obviously, it is for the Scottish Affairs Committee to conduct its business as it sees fit, but that is my hope for its inquiry.

As I said, it is right that we are having a debate—and I think that we have had a very healthy debate in the Scottish Parliament—about the efficacy of the approach and the evidence for why we would want to establish a safer drug consumption facility. It is critical that we keep the debate to those points of evidence and take into account the views of those with lived and living experience, to ensure that we can make progress for the people we need to do better by and to save lives.