³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

To follow on from that point, I understand that the regulations cover hospitals, particularly—

Thank you for the statement, cabinet secretary. As you outlined, the legislation attracts a degree of support. My question relates to the responsibility for enforcement. The big challenge with many such interventions is that if they are not enforced, people will often become frustrated. I note from the meeting papers that the duty to enforce will fall on local authorities and their environmental health officers. What does that mean in terms of financial implications for local authorities? I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests as an out-going local authority councillor.

We know that, throughout the pandemic, there was extra pressure on environmental health teams due to enforcement of coronavirus regulations, and we know that that came with a cost. I notice from the paragraph in the report on financial effects that there will not be additional funding, because it is expected that additional costs will be covered from existing budgets. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that local councils are stretched, and that there are huge challenges with the finance that is available. What scope is there to review the workload as the legislation is implemented and to consider what extra resources might be required?

Does the cabinet secretary feel that there is scope to extend that? We now have a number of new-build health and social care centres—very often in our town centres—that are well used, have treatment rooms and all the rest of it, so is there a sense that we should be looking to extend that ban across the estate more widely?

Good morning, panel. I want to follow the path that other colleagues have been going down on digital exclusion. We have heard evidence from patient groups—in particular, the Riverside patient participation group from Musselburgh, which noted that approximately 10 per cent of the population has no access to new forms of technology, or does not have the skills that are required to use them. Given that those patients are most likely to have the greatest health needs, what else can we do to protect their right to access primary health care? Would Chris Mackie like to go first?

Thank you. Those were very helpful responses.

I picked up that we want to avoid any sense that interventions would appear paternalistic, or any sense that things are being done to people. From what the witnesses have said, it is very much about collaboration between the link worker and the patient.

I will go back to Roseann Logan on her point about the pathway into sport. Is any work being done to look at how people who have had an initial block of training to access sports are subsequently encouraged or supported to join a local club that is free? Very often, a lot of the barriers are about having the confidence to join a club that is free and get involved. I wonder whether there is a sense that link workers could train and support someone initially and then help them to access the free clubs that already exist in our communities. I am keen to understand how common that is.

There has been increased demand for the NHS 24 telephony service; people want contact via the phone. I have raised the issue before in this committee. That has led to pressure, so sometimes calls go unanswered, which none of us wants to happen. What more do we need to do to bolster and support the service? Dr Perry, do you think that it is a question of call handling and clinical staff capacity? What else needs to be done?

Yes. I was referring to the challenges over the winter, when calls have, perhaps, gone unanswered. I was asking how we can ensure that that does not happen and about solutions to deal with the pressures.

A lot of the answers and discussion have been peppered by mention of the barriers that exist to accessing the sorts of pathways and interventions that there are. I am interested in your views about the potential for the exacerbation of inequalities.

Roseann Logan talked about the need for support and for someone to be accompanied to certain activities and have that intervention. In its written evidence, the alliance spoke about some of the challenges in relation to passes for sports and leisure activities. For example, if someone has never had the support to learn to swim and is given a leisure pass that ends after six weeks, would that increase those barriers, because that person would feel like it did not help them? Related to that, is the financial barrier to being able to continue with some of those activities after that six-week period too high? I am sorry—I appreciate that that was a lot. I drew some of that from the alliance’s evidence, so does Roseann want to start?

I want to explore that further. Chris Mackie’s point about who can support and advise is interesting. I am keen on what we can do in libraries in Scotland. I raised that point previously with Citizens Advice Scotland, which talked about some of its services. I am not sure, however, that there is universal coverage by such services. There is an opportunity to do more on that. Do the witnesses have reflections on that? Do the people whom Adam Stachura deals with through Age Scotland, for example, interact with library services?

It did, convener. Given the remarks that I just made about the importance to us all of the Promise, and given the degree to which the profile of people who have care experience—and, indeed, the care system itself—have been at the forefront in the past few years, I was quite surprised. The group is definitely of its time. It will provide a strong forum in which we, as decision makers, can continue to scrutinise that journey through hearing the voices of care-experienced young people.

I would also like to thank you, convener, for reminding colleagues that STAF is in the Parliament this week. Our stall continues today, and we have an event this evening. I will abuse my position slightly to plug that event, in case colleagues are around at 5.30 this evening.