���˿���

That is an excellent question, although I am not sure that I would phrase it in the same way and talk about drawing a line in the sand because, prior to Covid, the Government—and, in fairness, the Parliament; we worked quite well and collaboratively across parties—made significant progress on the public health agenda. Significant progress was made on smoking cessation—I do not need to go into detail on the importance of that for reducing preventable deaths. Good progress was also being made on the ambition around obesity. I should say again that that issue was part of a shared four-nations agenda; I raised it with the other health ministers of the four nations. Although we have some issues with the UK Health and Care Bill, I agree with some of the public health policy that the UK Government is trying to introduce, particularly for tackling obesity and unhealthy food, on a point of principle. However, it has undoubtedly been the case that, because of the pandemic and our focus on Covid, we have had to pause some of the good work that we were doing. Certainly, the focus of our marketing and communications, which we have already spoken about, has absolutely been on getting information out about Covid, whether that has been about vaccines, good hygiene measures or something else.

What we have to do—I have spoken to Public Health Scotland about this in the not-too-distant past—is try to pivot back to some of those core and important public health messages. I think that that is what Brian Whittle was alluding to. He is right: the outcomes can be worse for people with Covid if they have other underlying health conditions. We have to understand the data on that a bit better; Professor Steedman can speak more to that from a clinical perspective. We will have to try to pivot back to those important public health initiatives and communications.

I know that Brian Whittle understands this fully, but I say to him that we are not out of the pandemic; we are still in the midst of it. I will not pre-empt today’s figures, but I think that yesterday’s figures showed that we still had between 2,000 and 3,000 cases a day. The figures are still extraordinarily high. If it were not for the effects of the vaccine and we were seeing the high case numbers of a year ago, we would be in lockdown.

Yes. Indeed, one of the key meetings that I had early on as health secretary was with cybersecurity experts. Frankly, there is still work to be done in that respect. We have seen some of these issues aired publicly, with the previous breaches of cybersecurity in some health boards, so we must ensure that our systems are robust.

Generally when it comes to our digital tech and infrastructure in the NHS, we have a way to go. That goes not just for the issues with the Covid app, which I would be happy to talk about in more detail; in general, the ambitions that we have for digital infrastructure are just that: very ambitious. We need to move ahead on them at scale and at pace. However, we are doing a lot of work with health boards and others to try to bolster our cybersecurity, because it is incredibly important.

Forgive me. You are right that I did not touch on that. I do not have that information to hand and do not know whether any of my officials do. I would be surprised if we differed greatly but Karen Duffy or Derek Grieve might have more information on that. If not, we can write to the convener.

Those are excellent questions and very good points. We are doing a lot of that work. We have been guided in a lot of our consideration of ethnic minority communities by an expert group that was being led by Christina McKelvie, who is on a period of curative leave. Other ministers are taking over that work. It involved a number of organisations across Scotland that will be familiar to Brian Whittle and committee members who represent our ethnic minority communities. They have given a number of recommendations to the Government, which have, I think, been published—forgive me; I will double check that. Many of their recommendations focus on data.

We are not where we want to be on data, particularly in relation our ethnic minority communities. That applies across the Government and the public sector. I remember that, when I spoke about justice outcomes for ethnic minority communities when I was Cabinet Secretary for Justice, we did not have the data that we wanted at a granular level. A lot of work is going into improving data, particularly for ethnic minority communities.

I do not disagree with the points that Brian Whittle raised. We take a great interest in some of the studies that have been done across the United Kingdom, but there are some nuanced differences between Scotland and, say, England when it comes to BAME communities. In my experience, there is a difference between the south Asian Pakistani community in Scotland and the Pakistani English community in Bradford, for example. I am not sure that I have ever got to the nub of the reasons for that, but there are differences in economic status and so on. We have to be aware of such differences.

Lots of good studies are being done globally. We do not just take an interest in those studies; we actively seek out those that are on-going and anything that we can learn from them.

I do not disagree with Brian Whittle’s central point about data. We are doing a lot of work to try to improve our data collection in the longer term to inform our future response.

I slightly disagree with your characterisation of what happened—I would not use the word “slavishly”. The members of the JCVI are the experts in vaccination and immunisation. It is important that every Government listens carefully to what the JCVI has to say, but that does not mean that we do not scrutinise its advice where necessary and appropriate. That is the same for every Government across the four nations.

If you look at the advice on 12 to 15-year-olds, you will see that the JCVI itself recommended that health secretaries task their CMOs with considering the wider implications. Therefore, I would not say that we moved away from its advice. It was the JCVI that pointed out that its remit related only to health and that there was a marginal health benefit to vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds but not enough to suggest a universal offer. Therefore, it advised us—the Governments—to task our CMOs with considering the broader implications of educational disruption. The CMOs did not just make that decision themselves. They spoke to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and other bodies over a number of days, as you would imagine, and then recommended a universal offer for 12 to 15-year-olds.

The decision does not change the dynamic. Although the Scottish Government does not have the same obligations as the UK Government has in relation to JCVI advice, we still put weight on it and stock in it. The JCVI has sometimes given advice that has perhaps gone against the tide of public opinion but has proven to be right, such as the eight-week gap between doses 1 and 2, which is different from the approach in a number of other European countries.

In Israel, for example, the fact that restrictions had to be reimposed was, certainly initially, put down to the fact that the gap between dose 1 and dose 2 of the vaccine meant that not so many people had maximum protection as was the case in the UK, because we followed the JCVI advice on the eight-week gap between doses, which we think afforded greater protection. I do not think that the value of the relationship has changed, and we put great stock in its advice.

I am willing to discuss what that should look like in more detail with the UK Government, but its aim is to underpin any future discussions or consultation between the Scottish ministers and the UK Government on reserved matters. We should be asked for our consent on devolved issues—I do not think that anyone would argue that that would be inappropriate—and I hope that we would at least be consulted on reserved matters. After all, even where matters are fully reserved, there can be implications for the health service in Scotland. I am quite willing to enter into a memorandum of understanding with regard to reserved matters to ensure appropriate and full consultation between Scottish and UK Government ministers.

Your question gets to the nub of the issue. In the bill, there are, in effect, three provisions on the advertising of unhealthy food. First, it proposes a watershed for television advertising of less healthy food and drink products, which would be prohibited between 5.30 am and 9 pm. Secondly, it proposes a similar restriction of advertising on on-demand programme services, which also come under the jurisdiction of the UK and are regulated by Ofcom. Thirdly, it proposes a restriction of paid-for online advertising of less healthy food.

We have a difference of opinion with the UK Government in the third area. We accept that the first two areas are wholly reserved; I do not think that there is any argument in that respect. However, we have a different view in respect of the proposed restriction of paid-for advertising online of less healthy food.

As Emma Harper mentioned, it is an important issue, particularly in relation to our target to reduce childhood obesity. I am the stepfather of a 12-year-old. Given the amount of time my stepdaughter spends on her phone, on screens and looking at apps—I must work harder to curtail that—she will end up seeing a lot of advertising on any given day. I think that we can all agree that that is a really important space in which to try to legislate.

Again, we want to have a four-nations approach where possible, but our contention—this is a difference between us and the UK Government—is that we do not believe that online advertising in that respect is reserved. The primary purpose of the provision is to tackle childhood obesity by preventing children’s exposure to paid-for online advertising of less healthy food. We consider that to be a public health purpose, and therefore consider the matter to be devolved. That is where the difference comes from.

I note that the principle is really important. From that perspective, we can see how that could translate into other policy areas, and not just health policy areas. I suspect that, if we were to concede on the principle, there could be implications for other Government policy, too. I have had conversations with the Welsh Government, which is also of the view that the purpose of the provision is a public health one. It believes that the Senedd—the Welsh Parliament, of course—should legislate in that domain. There is a shared position between us and the Welsh Government.

Consultation has been limited. We encourage the UK Government to consult. Obviously, we are consulting, as members would imagine, but the UK Government’s consultation with us has not been as good as the consultation that I have seen on other bills in the past. Our consultation with the NHS and broader NHS and social care partners has been as extensive as it can be, but it is difficult when the detail is given to us with not much advance notice.

I know that a number of stakeholders share our concern about some of the aspects that have been discussed and some aspects that have not been discussed but are in the LCM—for example, in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We have a number of concerns, and we will continue our consultation with the UK Government. I hope that we will come to a sensible resolution, and we will certainly do what we can to consult further with NHS colleagues and partners.

I thank Paul O’Kane for that important question. There has been dialogue at official level for quite a while now, but the fact that we did not get the detail of what was in the bill until, I think, the day before it was introduced was a source of frustration for my officials. Just over two months ago I wrote to Minister Argar to highlight my concerns with regard to areas of devolved competence. I did not receive a response until two months later, which I can understand—I myself am extremely busy with correspondence and have sometimes taken longer to respond than I would have liked to. However, although I understand that these things can take time, what I have found frustrating is the nature rather than the timing of the response.

I am happy and willing to go back to the UK Government to ask for its response to be shared and put in the Scottish Parliament information centre for Parliament’s scrutiny, but even without doing that, I can safely tell the committee that the response that I received did not address the substantial points around devolved competence and the issue of consultation versus consent. In the meeting that I will have tomorrow, I will be fairly robust in that conversation about the fact that my expectations have not been met.

Finally, I should point out that there is not that much disagreement with regard to the policy areas; in fact, I could see us aligning with the policy intent in a lot of areas. However, this is about the principle that, with anything that falls within our devolved competence, we should not be treated simply as consultees. Instead, our consent as a Government should be sought, and the appropriate parliamentary processes should be followed.

The dialogue will continue, and I hope that we can reach some sort of agreement. If so, I will bring forward a supplementary LCM.

They could. It is accepted that food labelling is a devolved subject, and the UK Government is seeking consent in respect of the clause that would give the Scottish ministers an equivalent power to that which the secretary of state would have for England. I do not think that there would be the same impact that would apply in relation to online advertising, but I will take that question away and ensure that the provisions could not, as Ms Harper described it, “bleed into” other policy areas in the bill.