Chamber and committees

That is an interesting comment and comparison, given that we hear that some arguments for leaving the EU were economic ones.

Does Joël Reland have anything to add?

Thank you for your submissions. To expand a bit more on Mr Golden’s questions, I have a friend who is a retired doctor and he would have loved to have been able to do social prescribing. Some people may have the perception that, when you go to the doctor, you expect get pills or a bandage or something, and maybe there is a way go to make social prescribing more acceptable.

I am interested in the work that Robbie McGhee has done, or the organisations in the ACHWS network have done, to try to change that perception. Are there examples of other countries that are doing social prescribing? How do we change what happens in Scotland?

I have dropped a wee pebble there and you can do some more work on that.

I recognise that in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. Word of mouth is very important, too. If someone sees a benefit, they might take someone else along who can also get the benefit. However, I am also very aware that one size does not fit all and that what works on one island might not work on another island. It is an interesting conundrum.

I will change topic slightly. Last night, I was at a meeting of the cross-party group on the creative economy, where we had some fantastic presentations from individuals and organisations from the gaming industry on the work that they are doing across different areas. I am not talking only about the likes of “Minecraft” because there was also a health perspective and an education perspective. I am interested to hear about what work Robbie McGhee has done with the gaming industry and what research Diana Murray has done in that area of our economy, which is also part of our culture?

I have two specific questions about the tracker that you have provided. On migration, in your introductory comments, you talked about the importance of robotics and the investment in this country and about how research and development could be sold on. How does that tie in with no longer being in the Erasmus+ scheme and with the new Turing scheme? The Erasmus+ scheme supports inward students and provides a different and improved university experience, but it also supports research and lecturers. It provides wider experience in universities and colleges and allows for wider research. How does that tie in with the current situation?

I would like to move on to participation in the process, which the cabinet secretary touched on in some of her earlier answers. A lot of the written and oral evidence to the committee talked about the importance of getting a wide range of views—for example, from children. Jayne Jones talked about the importance of the 1,140 hours of childcare and how that can set children on a journey to improving their knowledge about food and sitting down for a meal.

We also heard about hard-to-reach people and the importance of getting lived-experience evidence. Last week, I met some farmers who see the bill as very important. We have previously touched on the importance of local procurement and how that works. What do you think the participation should look like, and how will it feed into the development of the plans?

My question follows on from Ariane Burgess’s question. Last week, the committee heard evidence that the bill will give us the opportunity to

“think differently about good food and making the best use of public investment in public sector food”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 9 February 2022; c 56.]

I want to explore a wee bit more the question of which other organisations, whether they are public bodies or third sector bodies, could be described as specified public authorities with regard to undertaking consideration and producing plans.

In my earlier question, I touched on collaboration and the importance of many different organisations working together. Ariane Burgess touched on that in her question, too. I am interested to know how you see the bill, and the plans, working to support that collaboration.

Perfect. It is also important to remember that, in looking at plans and outcomes across different local authorities and health boards, one size does not fit all. An outcome may be achieved differently in my constituency of Argyll and Bute from how it is achieved in Glasgow.

It is interesting to look at Argyll and Bute, given the diversity of the community. Something might work well on one island but less well on another; it is about understanding that. Jayne Jones and her team have worked on that really well. Jim Fairlie talked about collaboration across local authority areas. It is important to remember that, although one size does not fit all, there is a need for collaboration and learning from best practice in other areas.

I want to follow on from the convener’s earlier questions on the consultation on secondary legislation and what scrutiny the Parliament could have in that respect. I note that any such legislation will be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. Can you elaborate on the thinking behind that?