³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is a really good question. In time, it might well do that in terms of reduction of duplication. However, it is also important—I think that Sue Webber would ultimately agree with this—that each of the Governments across the UK nations has bespoke advice, because, although there will absolutely be some common themes that affect Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, there are also distinct issues that affect us uniquely. Therefore, having that scientific advisory group for the Scottish Government is really important for us, given the unique pressures that we might face, which might be different from those faced in parts of England and Wales—or, indeed, in Northern Ireland where it shares a land border with a member of the EU, which is perhaps the most obvious example.

On the question about reducing duplication, I would say that—yes, absolutely—that will probably happen more as the framework is embedded. However, I would always reserve our right to make sure that we have that bespoke advice where appropriate.

I will not labour the point. I think that everybody here understands that the Scottish Government would have preferred by far that we had retained our EU membership. That would have given us greater access and we would have been part of the European Centre for Disease Control, for example. We would not have had to have memorandums of understanding, which, although they can be positive, are suboptimal compared with EU membership. There is no point in labouring that point, but it is important to put on record that any arrangements that we put in place for cross-border co-operation with the EU are suboptimal in comparison with EU membership.

On co-operation, we expect there to be a strong system of intelligence and data sharing. As we know, the UK Health Security Agency has entered into an MOU with the ECDC. We are pleased that the MOU has been signed, but we will not have the parity of access that we had previously.

Emma Harper asked an important question about the Scottish Government’s involvement. Again, if I was to go by the process of the framework, I would definitely be encouraged. There was certainly a role for Scottish representatives in influencing those discussions with the European Union. Ultimately, though, if we were ignored, there would not necessarily be adequate recourse for us to ensure that our desires in relation to cross-border co-operation were being satisfactorily met.

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.

Good morning, convener, and good morning to all members who are present. I hope that you are all keeping safe and well. Although I am pleased, as always, to appear before the committee, it is a shame that the session has to be done virtually because of the constraints that are on us. I look forward to being with you face to face.

You asked a really good question, convener. The budget that we have put in place helps us to build on the manifesto commitments that we have already achieved this year. It is important to recognise that, in the first 100 days, we made an incredible amount of progress in meeting our manifesto commitments, including abolishing dental charges for people aged under 26.

We have gone beyond what we promised to do in the first 100 days—for example, we have introduced the paramedic bursary, which members across the committee were very supportive of, and we have put in place the first steps for the national care service. I will no doubt come back to that. We managed to bring forward many other commitments in the space of 100 days, including the pay rises for not just agenda for change staff but doctors and dentists.

There is a lot that we have done in this financial year that we hope to build on in the next financial year, and the budget goes into great detail on that. One of the key, significant reforms that we hope to progress will undoubtedly be the national care service. That will be the biggest public sector reform in the devolution era. We hope that that will be fully operational by the end of the parliamentary session, so we are putting in place the appropriate building blocks for it.

Crucially, we have funding in the budget to help us to progress with the national recovery plan, including the increase to health boards, which I can go into detail on if necessary. That will help to drive the recovery. We need to make sure that we recover as well as deal with the effects of the pandemic.

A lot of resource is going into capital. Members can see some important projects in the capital allocation, such as Parkhead health centre and the Baird and ANCHOR—Aberdeen and north centre for haematology, oncology and radiotherapy—project, and the money to progress the replacement for Monklands hospital, which is also much needed.

I am sure that we will get into the detail of this, but the big uncertainty continues to be the UK Government’s lack of transparency in relation to Covid funding. We desperately need certainty on that because, as we all know, we are not yet through the pandemic. This meeting being conducted virtually is testament to that.

I wish that I could, convener. That is exactly the point that you are making. I will not delve too much into what happened last week, but it was extremely poor that those kinds of silly political games were being played in the midst of a global pandemic or, certainly, at the foothills of another wave. When the First Minister got to her feet, there was a press release from the Treasury that claimed that there would be new money, but it was nothing of the sort. Indeed, there was a potential reduction in the consequentials that are coming our way. Those consequentials are vital, as you have rightly said, in dealing with the effects of the pandemic and for the crucial tools that we have in our armoury against the virus, such as vaccinations and test and protect.

On the UK Government spending review, the Covid consequentials were far less than we had expected, given how much has already been spent on fighting the virus and the fact that the virus has not yet gone away. We desperately need certainty from the Treasury about the amounts of money and how the money will be spent. As members can imagine, I push the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on those issues in my regular four-nations calls, as do the Welsh and the Northern Irish. In fairness, he is always constructive in those conversations, but there has been no clarity forthcoming, which is deeply concerning.

I do not know whether Richard McCallum wishes to add to that. He is involved in discussions with finance colleagues at an official level.

I do not think that we are giving distinction awards. We took a decision not to do that. Richard McCallum might want to provide further clarity.

That is probably the most crucial question that we are dealing with at the moment. This Government has progressed the preventative spend agenda for a number of years. It was core to the Christie commission report, which is as relevant today as it was when it was published.

We can do everything that we want to do in health but, if we operate in a silo, we will not make the difference in people’s lives that we want to make. We have to make sure that we are working with our colleagues—which we are—across the education, social justice, justice, housing and economy portfolios.

The work that the Deputy First Minister does in bringing us together, at least weekly, with a laser focus on, for example, child poverty targets, helps us to work in a way that is even more collegiate than was previously the case. That will both help us as decision makers and have an important effect on outcomes for those who have, regrettably, fallen through the cracks between the various systems and been passed from pillar to post, which is not acceptable. Good joined-up working is taking place between various portfolios.

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.