³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

I like that question from Emma Harper—it is fair to throw down the gauntlet in that regard. If we are already getting there, are we challenging ourselves enough? In my view, it is a positive that we have got to where we have.

The purpose of the target is to make changes on the ground and to underline the Scottish Government’s focus on shifting the balance of care where that is possible, while ensuring that we have in place appropriate support for hospital-based services. Nobody would say that—[Inaudible.]—which is an important point. I know that Emma Harper has personal experience of this area and understands the issues very well. We will continue to review the appropriate portion of spend.

To go back to my previous comments in response to the convener, once we do some further work on the medium-term financial framework and get further details, we will take that into account. In general, however, Emma Harper’s challenge to us is fair, and I will absolutely reflect on whether, if we are already meeting the 50 per cent target, we should be looking to be even more ambitious.

We can give you the detail of that. We will always look at any Audit Scotland report in great detail and consider its findings. You might have seen that the finance secretary addressed some of the issues in the Audit Scotland report.

On resource, it is important to say that it was well documented last year that very late consequentials that came in in the last few months of the year would have to be carried forward to ensure that vital programmes, such as vaccination programmes, could continue. Vaccination programmes do not stop at the end of the financial year, so we have a budget for the full initiative.

On capital, there is no doubt that lockdown had an impact on the ability to complete projects within the set timescales. Our portfolio was the most affected, along with transport and infrastructure. Contrary to any claims, the economy budget was overspent.

It is important to digest the full detail of the Audit Scotland report. With regard to transparency in the budget, I am always happy to consider members’ suggestions about how we can be even more transparent than we are. I might bring in Richard McCallum on that, as he might have more details. If Ms Webber wants to know about any specifics, she can respond after he has spoken.

Again, we will work closely with the boards on how we can support them. We want them to get to a substantially sustainable level. Like any Government, we would always consider writing off the debts of health boards and similar bodies, but that comes at a cost somewhere else in the health budget, and it is incredibly difficult to find that money when we are in a situation in which every penny is allocated.

We want NHS Ayrshire and Arran to be able to stand on its own two feet financially and to have in place the financial mechanisms and controls that can get it de-escalated from level 3 of the framework. That is certainly what Audit Scotland would expect.

Richard McCallum might want to add more to that.

It is a number of years since we took that decision.

In all honesty, I think that those two aspects are linked. We can help people through Covid with the various spends that we have already put in the budget. Vaccination is an example. We know from the data that vaccine uptake can be at its lowest among those in the most deprived areas. When we deal with preventative spend by focusing on child poverty and early intervention, that can help our vaccination efforts not just in the current pandemic, but in ensuring that we are prepared for whatever the next pandemic might be. It is important that we do not see those two aspects as distinct and separate; I know that you do not.

With regard to protecting spend, it would be fair to say, looking at our budget in detail, that it delivers on the commitment to direct 50 per cent of front-line spend towards community health services and progresses our commitment to increase primary care funding by 25 per cent. We have a good basis on which to build. I agree that, with regard to current pressures versus what are seen as preventative measures, it is difficult to get the balance right, but I try not to view those two aspects as distinct and separate. Our investment in preventative measures will also help us to deal with the pandemic.

That is a fair question, convener. As we have recognised already, the health and social care medium-term financial framework will have to be updated in the light of Covid and other significant changes, such as our work towards a national care service. The framework considers available resource and demands but, obviously, it does not set our budget. Our budget is informed by key policy priorities and the national performance framework, to ensure that commitments and linked budgets ultimately contribute to the delivery of desired outcomes.

A recent study by the London School of Economics and The Lancet suggests that 4 per cent real-terms growth in healthcare costs is to be expected, to ensure improving quality of care and terms and conditions for the health and care workforce. That is very much in keeping with the assumptions that underpin the current medium-term financial framework. I have no doubt that that, as well as other independent research, will inform our view. However, there is no doubt that, given the pressures and challenges of Covid, we will have to look at that medium-term framework once again.