Chamber and committees

Thank you. That consensus approach and the desire to get it right from the start are really helpful.

In the hypothetical situation that we could not get agreement between the four nations on an international treaty or international concerted action, is it your view that we would need to invoke conflict resolution procedures, or would the UK Government seek to act unilaterally? From the conversation that we have just had, we know that consensus is certainly what we would be aiming for, but we cannot always achieve that. I am keen to get your sense of that.

I have just one more question, and I will segue to the subject of pay for social care workers. During the budget process, the finance secretary said that she felt that the 48p increase was fair and “pays carers for their labours”—I think that that was the expression she used. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that? Does he feel that that is an acceptable pay increase for care workers?

Thank you for that. I will follow that up, if I may. Is your sense of that perhaps similar to what you said in your first answer—that the aim would be very much to have a more collaborative approach whereby we would come to a consensus instead of having to look to the letter of the memorandums of understanding when they come forward?

My question follows on from the point about the £10 billion investment over the next decade. Given that health capital budgets are typically around £500 million, it is clear that there will have to be quite a detailed uprating, and I am keen to understand where you think that that will come from. A huge amount of capital promises have been made within that, whether in the plan that has not yet been published or in the manifesto—for example, in relation to refurbishment of the Royal Alexandra hospital and the Vale of Leven hospital in my region. There is already a £76 million repair backlog at the RAH. I am therefore keen to understand how and when we will profile those things.

It would be useful for further scrutiny if the committee could have more detail on that in writing.

I want to ask about the structure of the national care service. We are still going through the responses and the structure is not yet finalised in respect of the proposal to create community health and social care boards to replace IJBs. Does the cabinet secretary think that many of the issues that have been experienced with financial accountability and leadership in IJBs will be solved by creating a new structure?

Last week, we heard a lot of important evidence and, as Sue Webber said, it was quite emotional at points. We heard about the planned development of specialist baby loss units. Those units are not anticipated to be fully available across Scotland until 2024. As a starting point, I would like to understand what percentage of parents get access to a specialist bereavement midwife now. What can we do to speed up specialist interventions, particularly through the baby loss units?

If the minister could write to the committee with the specific percentages that I asked for, that would be helpful, just so that we can have that empirical data. I notice that the minister is agreeing, which is great.

I have a further question about more specialised pathways for women, particularly in relation to mental health and increased vulnerabilities such as substance misuse issues. What specific pathways or interventions are being developed to support people with mental health or substance misuse issues?

No, convener—that was most helpful.

We have heard about the work that is being done and the huge support that is being provided by the third sector, and I am keen to hear your thoughts about the sustainability of third sector organisations. The perinatal and infant mental health fund, which was launched in May 2020, has provided £665,000 to support 16 organisations. Is that fund providing the sustainability that is needed, or do we need to go further and find other ways of mainlining that funding? I direct that to Clea Harmer, and to Cat Berry, if we have time.

I thank everyone for their contributions this morning. What is coming across is a sense that the approach needs to be evidence led and that we need to take our time with it. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but we want to take time to learn from the experience of the past 18 months.

I will touch on two points. On digital exclusion, I agree with what has been said about ensuring that people have the right support. My concern is that we often end up with a two-tier system, even within a digital offering. People who do not have access to the internet sometimes cannot do audiovisual participation and end up participating via a phone, which is not always the best option, particularly—Karen Wylie alluded to this—in relation to children’s hearings and family courts, in which the issues that are discussed are very emotive and can be very stressful and challenging for people. Participation on a phone can often mean that it is difficult to read people’s tones or get a sense of what support someone might need. In addition, if someone is being supported by an advocate or legal counsel, it can often be hard in a digital setting for that relationship to be well established and for the person to get the right support. There are certainly things that need to be looked at to ensure that there is parity of access, even within digital offerings.

Ruth Crawford touched on the public’s access to the courts and how, where appropriate, members of the public can ensure that they can be present, if they choose to be. Obviously, our public galleries at Holyrood have been empty for the duration of the pandemic, but we broadcast all the public meetings of the Parliament via the website through Scottish Parliament TV. The difference is that we have not quite reached all court proceedings being digitally available or available in live time. I am keen to understand how we can protect the right of the public to be present in court if there is a move to a digital setting.

I am currently a serving councillor. We have a strange process if a member of the public wants to join the meeting. They have to request to do so prior to the meeting and be let into the system that we use, otherwise they have to watch it after the live event on YouTube. We need to look at such issues so that we protect people’s fundamental right to be present.