Chamber and committees

I do not think that the UK Government will necessarily accede to that, but discussions will continue. I should have said at the start of my remarks that I am grateful for the personal intervention of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. In my previous meetings and correspondence we were not getting very far, but he and I were able to sit down and thrash it out. I am pleased that he compromised in relation to the consent provisions that we were, reasonably, asking for. I will keep the discussions going, but, to be frank, I do not think that the UK Government will change its position.

As I said on 5 October and referenced in my opening statement, I have no objection to the policy principle. A lot of good can be done by tackling the advertising of less healthy food on a four-nations basis. However, it is incumbent on me, in my position in Government and, I suspect, important for all MSPs, that we protect the devolution settlement. We are worried about there being some overreach. It should also be noted that certain stakeholders, including Food Standards Scotland and Obesity Action Scotland, have criticised the UK Government’s definition of “less healthy”. There are understandable differences but I stress again that I am not particularly opposed to the substance of the policy. My concern is the overreach into public health, which I think we all agree is a devolved matter.

That second question is really good. The first one is also good—I do not want to take that away from you—but the second one is important and vital for us to answer.

The first question is perhaps the slightly easier one to answer. Like any offence that is created, we will work closely with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland on implementation. That will not be any different to how we deal with any new offence. We will take that forward in the usual way.

The second question is critically important. We cannot find—we are unable to find—any evidence of virginity testing taking place in Scotland. That is not the same as saying that that does not happen; we just not have been able to find any evidence of that.

The criminalisation of the practice intends to ensure a unified approach across all four nations. Therefore, although we could not find evidence of that practice—again, I stress that that does not mean that it is not happening—we would not want a situation to arise in which the other nations of the UK legislate that that is an offence, and Scotland is seen as a safe haven for virginity testing. Although we are unable to find evidence of it taking place, all of us—including the committee members—agree that virginity testing is a form of violence against women and girls. It is completely unacceptable if and where it is happening.

With regard to stakeholder engagement, the stakeholders were positive about legislating for the offence, given everything that I have said a moment ago. The only note of caution that was perhaps struck—which I would not overplay—was that we could be in danger of overcriminalising offences in a way that puts a focus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The second point that a number of groups made was that it is fine to legislate, but we have to accompany that with education and working with those communities. We have to get into those communities to eliminate the practice, if it is going on in Scotland in any way, shape or form. The feedback from stakeholder engagement was really good.

If the bill passes in the House of Commons, we will absolutely do the work on that, perhaps on a four-nations basis, which would make sense if the legislation is across the four nations. We will look at the UK Government’s plans for that marketing and awareness raising and, if we agree with it, we will do it on a four-nations basis but—as is sometimes the case—if it does not quite match the messaging that we feel is appropriate, we will take forward our own awareness raising. There will be awareness raising and, as I keep emphasising, it is really important. We want to work with those communities so that they do not feel unnecessarily targeted. People in all ethnic minority communities would be the first to say that those practices are abhorrent and have no place in any society.

Good morning to you, convener, and to all committee members. I hope that you are all keeping safe and well.

You have come straight in with tough questions. I am not surprised that you are asking such key questions. I will take them in the order in which you asked them.

It is difficult to answer whether, if the framework had been in place at the outset of Covid, it would have significantly changed the response of the four nations. I suspect that it would not have done because the data sharing with the United Kingdom Government has been good. It has evolved as we have gone through the pandemic, but it has certainly been good in my time as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Of course, I was in the Cabinet in a different role at the beginning of the pandemic, so I know that it was good previously.

The collaboration between the four nations in response to the pandemic has been good, although there have been times when it has been of concern. We have raised those concerns, sometimes in private and sometimes publicly. That is well understood, but, on the whole, the four nations’ collaboration and sharing of information on the pandemic has been good. That does not mean that it will always be thus. Therefore, whether for the pandemic, which still has to run its course, or for any future public health threat—goodness forbid—it is important that we have the framework underpinning the principles of that collaboration.

The second part of your question is equally important. Again, I stress that, although the framework has overarching principles, it does not prevent any of the four nations from acting in a different way if it wishes to do so. In essence, the framework is policy neutral. It does not prevent the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or, indeed, the UK Government from taking decisions that diverge from those of the other home nations.

The framework does not necessarily impose costs on any of the Governments that are taking the lead in certain areas. That is not to say that we would not bolster resources, because we would, particularly in the area of genomics. The pandemic has taught us a lot of things—among them, the importance of genomic sequencing. The Government has put on record our desire to further increase our resources around genomics—the First Minister has spoken about that on a number of occasions—so, although the framework does not necessarily do that, we want to ensure that the areas where we lead are well resourced.

The framework might not go into detail on that point, but that is a vital issue. Where we can share further research and intelligence, that helps us to build up our knowledge, particularly in relation to the pandemic, which is the current issue that we are facing. Research studies from across the UK have helped to inform our thinking and decision making.

You and I have different opinions on the constitutional future of Scotland—that is fine. However, ultimately, whether we are independent or part of the union, the sharing of information across borders—on these islands and with the European Union—is hugely beneficial, and I would not want to lose that, regardless of what our constitutional set-up might be.

The answer to your question about whether we will continue to share information is yes. The framework might not determine all of that, but I know from my discussions with the UK Government that it is in the same place as I am in that regard, and I know that my Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts feel the same way. The more that we can share research on health, the better for all of our citizens.

I expect that the Parliament will have no less of a role than it had under the previous system. The Scottish Government is absolutely open to that role being enhanced where possible, but I suspect that that will become clear only as the framework is embedded in our public health infrastructure. A review period is built into the framework and might provide a good hook for Parliament to consider its operation and whether it delivers as well as we hope that it will.

Ultimately, those are questions for the Parliament, as opposed to the Government, to answer. However, if the Parliament wanted further scrutiny and thought that the review was the correct point at which to invite me, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and my officials to comment, or if the committee wanted to undertake a detailed review or scrutinise work plans, I would be open to any role that the Parliament wished to have in the agenda, because it is so important.

That is a really good question. In time, it might well do that in terms of reduction of duplication. However, it is also important—I think that Sue Webber would ultimately agree with this—that each of the Governments across the UK nations has bespoke advice, because, although there will absolutely be some common themes that affect Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, there are also distinct issues that affect us uniquely. Therefore, having that scientific advisory group for the Scottish Government is really important for us, given the unique pressures that we might face, which might be different from those faced in parts of England and Wales—or, indeed, in Northern Ireland where it shares a land border with a member of the EU, which is perhaps the most obvious example.

On the question about reducing duplication, I would say that—yes, absolutely—that will probably happen more as the framework is embedded. However, I would always reserve our right to make sure that we have that bespoke advice where appropriate.

I will not labour the point. I think that everybody here understands that the Scottish Government would have preferred by far that we had retained our EU membership. That would have given us greater access and we would have been part of the European Centre for Disease Control, for example. We would not have had to have memorandums of understanding, which, although they can be positive, are suboptimal compared with EU membership. There is no point in labouring that point, but it is important to put on record that any arrangements that we put in place for cross-border co-operation with the EU are suboptimal in comparison with EU membership.

On co-operation, we expect there to be a strong system of intelligence and data sharing. As we know, the UK Health Security Agency has entered into an MOU with the ECDC. We are pleased that the MOU has been signed, but we will not have the parity of access that we had previously.

Emma Harper asked an important question about the Scottish Government’s involvement. Again, if I was to go by the process of the framework, I would definitely be encouraged. There was certainly a role for Scottish representatives in influencing those discussions with the European Union. Ultimately, though, if we were ignored, there would not necessarily be adequate recourse for us to ensure that our desires in relation to cross-border co-operation were being satisfactorily met.