���˿���

That is one of the challenges that we have faced throughout the pandemic. We rely on expert advice. For vaccines, we rely on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to give us advice on which groups should be targeted with vaccination. It can work only at a certain pace. People want to know now whether they will get a vaccine in the autumn. At the moment, the JCVI has not come out completely clearly. It has said that some of the population will be eligible, but it has not made a final statement on who will be eligible. The Scottish Government has largely followed JCVI advice, because it is absolutely the expert on vaccination and it will help us to make the most of the vaccination programme, which has been so transformative in this pandemic.

FACTS is: F, wear a face covering; A, avoid crowded spaces; C, clean your hands; T, observe two-metre distancing; and S, self-isolate. [Applause.]

I am lousy at acronyms, I have to admit. I find acronyms very hard. I can remember that acronym and I can remember the general meaning, but remembering what the individual instructions are is tricky. I agree that finding that sweet spot of simple messaging is difficult. I know that in England they went for—

Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Scottish Government’s communication of public health information.

Communication was at the heart of our response to the pandemic. Our overarching communication aims were to reach the entire population of Scotland as many times as possible in the most cost-effective way, with accessible information that was easily understood and which motivated people to stay safe and to protect others. The challenges were significant, in that the situation was changing constantly. Information was often complex and sensitive, and there were risks around overload and confusion, particularly when the measures and messaging were different from those of the United Kingdom Government.

Behavioural science was, and continues to be, central to our approach to all pandemic-related communications activity. Alongside the significant behavioural asks that were identified by medical and other experts, our understanding of the factors that inform behaviour change among the population has been essential in delivering effective public health messaging.

As well as drawing on behavioural science best practice, we undertook our own research to strengthen our insights and understanding. Specifically, we sought to understand people’s attitudes, awareness and motivations related to Covid.

We also looked to identify barriers that people had to adopting important public health behaviours. We used that evidence to develop our messaging across a range of media channels to ensure that different audiences and population groups were reached.

I turn briefly to the work that we did to drive vaccine uptake as one specific example of how we targeted our messages to help us to achieve the public health goals. We have ensured that all our Covid-19 vaccination communications are suitable for everyone in Scotland, with tailored messages, where necessary, to reach specific groups. We have translated vaccine information into multiple languages and provided it in a range of formats on NHS Inform.

We also developed a culturally sensitive vaccine explainer video, which was informed by insights from organisations that represent various communities across government.

Equally important is that we worked, and continue to work, with health boards and other partners to encourage uptake, particularly where it is low in specific communities. Our approach is informed by the evidence, including Public Health Scotland’s equality data, which gives a breakdown of vaccination uptake by ethnicity and by deprivation.

We have sought to build trust, and to remove barriers for people who might not otherwise take up the vaccination, through a range of outreach activity and partnerships with local authorities, and community and third sector organisations. The research that was published yesterday shows that people welcomed having a local and more flexible service when they were considering vaccination.

Just as our approach to public communications was influenced by behavioural science and insight, our communications were informed by the science of the pandemic and how to fight Covid. That has meant that rapid access to the evidence and expertise across a range of disciplines and organisations has been vital throughout.

Just as the science behind our understanding of the pandemic constantly evolved, so too did our approach to how we commissioned and considered scientific advice. For example, we established the Covid-19 advisory group and sub-groups, which have brought together experts from a range of disciplines and organisations, including universities, Public Health Scotland, National Services Scotland and Scottish Government advisers.

The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser for Scotland also led a new network of our science and evidence-related chief advisers to share information across their specialisms. That has delivered a holistic approach to commissioning and co-ordination of scientific evidence.

I look forward to this morning’s discussion, and am happy to answer questions from the committee.

Jason Leitch will probably give you a fuller answer on that, but the sensitivity around the word “vulnerable” indicates just how difficult it is to choose the right words to communicate risk to a population with different levels of susceptibility.

Not all sites on social media are worth looking at, but travellingtabby.com was absolutely brilliant at analysing the data and presenting it in a way that was understandable to the population. It was remarkable work by a university student, who has rightly been lauded for it. More of that would be great.

I will let Professor Linda Bauld answer that.

I certainly do. Of course, I do; I am the public health minister.

That is a challenge in healthcare environments across the board. It is really important that we think about the cultural impact of such legislation. It gives clarity and certainty to people in Scotland. They will know that hospitals do not allow smoking within their perimeters. I think that that alone will reduce the level of conflict in implementing the ban.

There was a lot of concern in advance of the smoking ban about how the ban would be implemented. Before the ban, there was often friction around how no-smoking areas were implemented. The smoking ban brought clarity to the situation. People know that they are not allowed to smoke and that there will be consequences if they do so. It is not simply a matter of appealing to their good nature; there is the potential for issuing a fine should they not comply with the legislation. That brings clarity and reduces conflict.

I would not disagree with anything there. I will not get into the detail of your first comment about the fact that the Government in the UK could change. Scotland has consistently voted left wing—either Labour or the Scottish National Party—for many decades, and we do not always get the Government that we vote for: we get the Government that our neighbours choose. To be frank, that is a fundamental challenge for the health of people in Scotland.

Undoubtedly, I think that, if we look at the issues in totality, Carol Mochan said much that would chime with some of the policies that the Scottish Government is developing. An example is the development of anchor institutions—I will let Michael Kellet say a little more about that. That development is recognition that we have a powerful opportunity through spending on our NHS that could be used to benefit communities. We could use that spending power to ensure, for example, that individuals who are less likely to be in the workforce have opportunities to be employed and trained, and are supported to fulfil their potential. We could use it by bringing in local procurement policies, which would mean that all the things that we have to buy to run the NHS could benefit local communities.

We could use some of the assets that the NHS has for community empowerment projects, by handing over buildings and land to support communities to do what they want. That is a hugely exciting opportunity, and if we get it right, it absolutely will have an impact.

Carol Mochan mentioned the generality of the space that we live in. Again, there is a lot of work on that going on across the board. We talk about 20-minute neighbourhoods. There are different opinions the length and breadth of Scotland about how doable that approach is in some areas, but it is a great concept to have everything you need within walking distance of your house, is it not?

Again, I highlight that it is important to consider the twin challenges that we face—tackling poverty and achieving our ambition for net zero—when we are thinking about what our environment looks like. To be honest, I would like us to think a bit more about them in considering how we deliver our public services.

As public health minister, I am a little tormented, to be honest, by the fact that we keep centralising public services so that people have to travel some distance—often, in my part of the world, by car—to access healthcare and local authority services. We need to think a bit more about how we can deliver such services closer to home. That would be better for people’s health; it would make it easier for them, and would not put in their way barriers that prevent them from accessing vital public services. That would also make a difference in respect of our net zero ambition—think how many journeys are made by people travelling for NHS appointments.

Carol Mochan mentioned early learning and childcare. It was a huge privilege for me to be involved in delivering that policy in the previous session of Parliament. I cannot tell you how significant that social infrastructure investment is; it will benefit children and their families the length and breadth of Scotland.

We found that investment in high-quality early learning and childcare has a direct impact on the individual child. It can literally close the attainment gap before it appears. We know that children from the poorest backgrounds are, when they present at school at the age of five, about 18 months behind their peers in language, literacy and numeracy. High-quality early learning and childcare can reverse that. We need the priority to be on eligible two-year-olds—about 25 per cent of children in Scotland are eligible for accessing provision early—in order to close that attainment gap.

However, the benefit does not stop there—the provision benefits not only the individual child, but their family. I have heard time and again about families who are really struggling. Many of us around the table who are parents will remember tag-team parenting, where one parent comes into the house and the other parent leaves to go to work. A lot of families are living like that, and are living under immense pressure, just to earn enough money to cover their household bills. The provision of high-quality early learning and childcare by the state gives them room to manoeuvre and to have family time, which is really important for them and for their children.

The final point, which is mind blowing—I used to get very excited when I thought about it—concerns the impact of high-quality early learning and childcare. As we see in studies from the US, the impact on the child is not only as they reach their school years and go through their education—it is lifelong. For children who have experienced high-quality early learning and childcare, there is a measurable impact on their parenting ability when they have their own children.

As a Government, how much do we love having policies that can effectively tackle some of the long-standing intergenerational challenges that Scotland faces? We in the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to tackling those challenges. That is why, despite all the economic benefits that come from ELC in Scotland, our ELC provision is absolutely focused on the beneficial impact on the child, and we are ensuring that that provision is high quality.

Michael Kellet might come in here.