Seòmar agus comataidhean

How do you balance the need for the stockpile with the costs? I assume that the products in question are perishable. Are you moving towards more of a just-in-time ordering system, or is having a stockpile important? I am bearing in mind the fact that the absence of such a stockpile was criticised at the beginning of the pandemic.

One of the phrases that has come up is “partnership working”. We have talked about the capacity building that has taken place in the domestic PPE industry. Is that sustainable? Does it pivot towards buying domestic product? Are health services internationally replicating that?

I echo what Mr Simpson has said. I welcome the use of the affirmative procedure, albeit that it is expedited—some scrutiny is better than no scrutiny at all.

It is worth saying for the record that, even though the instrument is sound, it will give effect to a policy that does not in my view meet the principal policy objective, which is

“to reduce the risk of transmission of coronavirus by ensuring”

—that is the word that it uses—

“that specified indoor public spaces where transmission risks are higher are used only by those who are vaccinated or can prove a record of a negative test.”

I stress the word “only”. We know that the vaccination passport scheme is flawed in that it does not prove that a person who presents the passport is the person who has been double vaccinated. Now, simultaneously, the scheme will not necessarily prove that a person has recorded a negative test.

The underlying problem with the scheme to which the instrument gives further effect is that it relies on good will and honesty rather than science or proof. I do not think that the instrument is defective on reporting ground (i), which is why we are not calling for it to be reported. However, the policy to which it gives effect and the scheme that is being applied are defective. I would very much welcome our drawing that to the attention of the lead committee and hearing what it has to say on that before we consider the instrument again next week.

Welcome, everyone. There is one question that perhaps has not been answered. I want to use the closing stages to look forward and see how we can strengthen community empowerment. There are clearly still challenges, despite the huge and, at times, heroic efforts of the third sector, in particular during Covid.

It might be worth asking this question to David Allan, who could respond from a national perspective, and then to Ryan Smart, with a local perspective. Despite all the progress that we have made, to what extent is there still a hard-to-reach group that we did not manage to engage with during the pandemic? On the basis of the learning that we have and the progress that we have made, what can we do to move forward and to reach groups that are marginalised, for whatever underlying reason? How can we finally move forward and ensure that the legacy is that we reach them in future?

Thank you. From a national or international policy perspective, to move that forward to the next phase, political will and public bodies will set the framework that allows community empowerment to thrive. To what extent are all parts of the public sector in Scotland currently supporting and empowering communities? Is there any ready-made template of international best practice or policy that we could embed in Scotland to improve that empowerment and engagement? That question is for Pippa Coutts first.

I ask Euan Leitch the same question. You talked about the fact that your predecessor said, “We do not need any more policy; we just need practice.” How can we move forward from policy to doing, in practical terms, what Pippa Coutts talked about? It strikes me that that is very much about moving away from firefighting and starting to plan for the long term.

I am one of the MSPs for South Scotland. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, as I will refer to it later. I am an East Lothian councillor.

Perhaps Ryan Smart can comment from a local perspective. You made the point that all the members of your centre’s management board live within five minutes of each other in Glenrothes. However, sometimes the most extreme problems are the ones that are nearest to us, and yet we do not see them. Do you feel that you have made progress on the ground in reaching people with whom you had not engaged previously?

Before I ask Stephen Boyle about the audit function, I will bring in Anna Fowlie. Earlier, the Auditor General said that the audit function is far more than a tick-box exercise; it is about learning, evaluating and assessing outcomes. I think that the SCVO has about 2,700 members. Is there still a view that the audit and evaluation process comes at the end and is very much about ticking a box to close a project or to reapply for funding? Is enough learning taking place in the sector to ensure that we evaluate, assess the outcomes, and collectively learn from what has or has not been achieved?

The convener mentioned two words that I was going to bring up: participatory budgeting. That is a concrete example of community engagement and empowerment. Given that the local government budget is £11,108 million, by my maths, about £111 million is being spent following some degree of community engagement. Auditor General, should more be done to audit that expenditure—it might not be done in a mandatory sense—not only to ensure that the public pound is being well spent but, more important, to ensure that the audit function is evaluating outcomes so that we can all learn and share best practice to allow us to accelerate the work that we have heard about today?