³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I can be relatively brief in answering that. Your question gives me the opportunity to thank my officials, who are on the line. They and their teams have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes trying to ensure that UK Government officials and their counterparts could see that we were not being obstructive or trying to be difficult for its own sake but that we had a genuine concern.

When I came to the committee last October, it was well understood by committee—I think that there was a lot of agreement around the table about this—that the substance of the policy was not necessarily the issue and that it was the lack of consent in areas that were clearly in devolved competency that was the cause of great anxiety.

On the discussions that took place, there was a fair bit of correspondence to and fro; there were also meetings, telephone calls and so on. As I said to Dr Gulhane, I am grateful to Sajid Javid, the secretary of state, for personally intervening. When he and I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago, that is when we began to see movement.

The conversations will have to continue. There is the unresolved issue that Dr Gulhane asked about a moment ago, and there is the issue of the implementation of a number of the provisions, should the House of Commons pass the bill. Discussions will also have to continue on the MOU, which has yet to be finalised. I would expect to come back to the Scottish Parliament with a further update on that.

The short answer to that is that we should do that, because of what I have just said to Stephanie Callaghan. We are unable to gather evidence around whether virginity testing or hymenoplasty is happening. That is not to say that it is not happening; if it is happening in England and other parts of the UK, I do not doubt that it might be happening in Scotland. That is why the second point that I made to Stephanie Callaghan is important. It is vital that we do that work by involving ourselves in the communities where we think that it could be happening. We have to work with and empower those communities to root out those practices which, as we all accept, are a form of violence against women and girls.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak to the committee, convener. I hope that you and all your committee colleagues are keeping safe and well.

You will know that the Scottish Government lodged a legislative consent memorandum on 31 August for the provisions in the bill which extend to Scotland. At the time of lodging, and in my appearance at this committee on 5 October 2021, I advised that the Scottish Government was not in a position to recommend consent to any of the provisions, despite—as I said a number of times to your committee—being broadly supportive of the policy intentions.

The bill is a skeleton bill; it has nine Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. The UK Government’s reluctance to include appropriate consent requirements was, to me, a direct threat to devolution.

As you may recall, in the previous evidence session in October, I stressed just how important it is to secure the consent of Scottish ministers on devolved matters. It is an integral pillar of the devolution settlement and our respective officials are currently discussing how parliamentary scrutiny of a decision to consent to any such statutory instruments can be achieved. I am therefore pleased to inform the committee that I have successfully negotiated consent requirements for key provisions within the bill. I am now in a position to recommend that the Scottish Parliament grants consent to the following clauses: medicine information systems; information about payments and so on to people in the healthcare sector, which is known as mandatory reporting; food labelling; reciprocal healthcare; professional regulations; the powers of the secretary of state to transfer or delegate functions in relation to arm’s-length bodies; and virginity testing and hymenoplasty offences.

Those provisions touch upon several different policy areas and, of course, I am always supportive of measures that seek to enhance and improve the health of the people of Scotland. It is, however, exceptionally important to note that the delivery of healthcare in Scotland is devolved and I will always challenge the UK Government on any perceived overreach into NHS Scotland.

I must also notify the committee that I was unable to resolve the competence dispute on the advertising of less healthy food and drink provision. I remain supportive of any measures that are designed to tackle obesity, and it is with regret that I note that the UK Government maintains that the matter is entirely reserved.

I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

Thanks, convener. That is an exceptionally important question from my point of view. The basis of my answer is that wherever we can include some level of parliamentary scrutiny we will do so. I mentioned in my opening remarks that I am keen that my officials continue conversations with the committee clerks and elected members, where appropriate, to discuss what that scrutiny will look like. It can only be to our advantage to have that scrutiny.

You asked a specific question about regulations that are made in devolved areas where there is no consent requirement, such as the food labelling provision and reciprocal healthcare provision, which confers concurrent powers on Scottish ministers. The concurrent powers in reciprocal healthcare in relation to regulations made by the UK Government are subject to the terms of the SI protocol 2 that you mentioned and, therefore, take account of parliamentary scrutiny. Where Scottish ministers make regulations, the Scottish Parliament will be notified by way of a Scottish statutory instrument.

The medicine information systems provision includes a consultation requirement. That will be underpinned by a robust memorandum of understanding that outlines the principles of engagement. The MOU has not been finalised yet, but my officials are collaborating with the UK Government to ensure that, prior to the drafting of regulations, consultation takes place in a meaningful and timely fashion. I stress those words—it has to be meaningful and it must not be last minute. I will write to the committee to provide an update on that when the consultation process has concluded.

The competence dispute on the advertising provision was not resolved. The UK Government maintains that it is entirely reserved and that there is, therefore, no specific requirement for the UK Government to consult Scottish ministers before making any secondary legislation in relation to online advertising of less healthy food and drink. There is, however, a requirement placed on the secretary of state to consult persons that they consider appropriate. As I consider that the online advertising provisions are at least in part devolved, I will write to inform the committee of any UK Government consultation that takes place.

Your second question was about how the committee can scrutinise the Scottish Government position in respect of proposed UK Government regulations that are in devolved areas where there is a consent requirement but SI protocol 2 does not apply. I do not think that there are currently any UK Government regulations in devolved areas where consent is required but an SI protocol does not apply. My officials are in discussion with the Scottish Parliament about how parliamentary scrutiny of a decision to consent to any such SIs could be achieved, but I think that I am right in saying that it does not currently apply in any protocols.

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.

Good morning to you, convener, and to all committee members. I hope that you are all keeping safe and well.

You have come straight in with tough questions. I am not surprised that you are asking such key questions. I will take them in the order in which you asked them.

It is difficult to answer whether, if the framework had been in place at the outset of Covid, it would have significantly changed the response of the four nations. I suspect that it would not have done because the data sharing with the United Kingdom Government has been good. It has evolved as we have gone through the pandemic, but it has certainly been good in my time as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Of course, I was in the Cabinet in a different role at the beginning of the pandemic, so I know that it was good previously.

The collaboration between the four nations in response to the pandemic has been good, although there have been times when it has been of concern. We have raised those concerns, sometimes in private and sometimes publicly. That is well understood, but, on the whole, the four nations’ collaboration and sharing of information on the pandemic has been good. That does not mean that it will always be thus. Therefore, whether for the pandemic, which still has to run its course, or for any future public health threat—goodness forbid—it is important that we have the framework underpinning the principles of that collaboration.

The second part of your question is equally important. Again, I stress that, although the framework has overarching principles, it does not prevent any of the four nations from acting in a different way if it wishes to do so. In essence, the framework is policy neutral. It does not prevent the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or, indeed, the UK Government from taking decisions that diverge from those of the other home nations.

The framework does not necessarily impose costs on any of the Governments that are taking the lead in certain areas. That is not to say that we would not bolster resources, because we would, particularly in the area of genomics. The pandemic has taught us a lot of things—among them, the importance of genomic sequencing. The Government has put on record our desire to further increase our resources around genomics—the First Minister has spoken about that on a number of occasions—so, although the framework does not necessarily do that, we want to ensure that the areas where we lead are well resourced.

The framework might not go into detail on that point, but that is a vital issue. Where we can share further research and intelligence, that helps us to build up our knowledge, particularly in relation to the pandemic, which is the current issue that we are facing. Research studies from across the UK have helped to inform our thinking and decision making.

You and I have different opinions on the constitutional future of Scotland—that is fine. However, ultimately, whether we are independent or part of the union, the sharing of information across borders—on these islands and with the European Union—is hugely beneficial, and I would not want to lose that, regardless of what our constitutional set-up might be.

The answer to your question about whether we will continue to share information is yes. The framework might not determine all of that, but I know from my discussions with the UK Government that it is in the same place as I am in that regard, and I know that my Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts feel the same way. The more that we can share research on health, the better for all of our citizens.

I expect that the Parliament will have no less of a role than it had under the previous system. The Scottish Government is absolutely open to that role being enhanced where possible, but I suspect that that will become clear only as the framework is embedded in our public health infrastructure. A review period is built into the framework and might provide a good hook for Parliament to consider its operation and whether it delivers as well as we hope that it will.

Ultimately, those are questions for the Parliament, as opposed to the Government, to answer. However, if the Parliament wanted further scrutiny and thought that the review was the correct point at which to invite me, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and my officials to comment, or if the committee wanted to undertake a detailed review or scrutinise work plans, I would be open to any role that the Parliament wished to have in the agenda, because it is so important.