You said that words in my amendment were legally challengeable, and you specified “appropriate support”. What would be legally challengeable in that phrase? I kept it so that it is not heavily detailed in order to give you flexibility in defining what would be appropriate—it would be for ministers to judge what was appropriate.

Dr Hood, do you want to respond on that issue? We are now six years on from the vote, and suddenly all this legislation has to be wrapped up in a year. It will be incredibly hard for us to scrutinise it. What would your advice to the Scottish Parliament be on ensuring that we do not miss out on any vital legislation that might change people’s lives here?

Perhaps I can follow up on those comments with Mr Livingstone, given his remarks about risk and uncertainty. What risk assessments should we, as parliamentarians, be carrying out to identify elements of the legislation that might be most vulnerable in the process?

I appreciate the written evidence that the witnesses submitted in advance. It feels unprecedented, because they are all measured witnesses and the background that they all have gives weight to their worrying comments about legal certainty, risks, unintended consequences, lack of scrutiny and lack of Government capacity.

Michael Clancy, in the general comments at the start of your submission, you say:

“there is no reason why retained EU law … cannot be considered a sustainable concept. On the other hand, it would be equally possible following a thorough review and relevant amendments that incorporation into domestic law in the four UK jurisdictions could be completed.”

Will you say a bit more on that? Thus far, the tone has been, “This will be a disaster.” What would be a more positive approach that would enable a degree of scrutiny and accountability for not only parliamentarians but the people whom we represent? Will you kick off, Mr Clancy?

Dr Hancox, you gave us an interesting set of thoughts about what we should be thinking about. Do you have any comments about what we should be doing? Should the legislation go through as is?

Professor Young, do you have any comments about what we should be doing to attempt to mitigate the potentially damaging impact of the bill?

I, too, welcome the minister to her new role.

The minister might be aware that, earlier this year, the City of Edinburgh Council decided to put in place a nil cap as part of its sexual entertainment licence scheme. Since that decision was taken, the council has faced challenges, including in court, on its policy. Given that stripping is classified by the Scottish Government, under its equally safe policy, as violence against women, what support is the Government providing to councils that have taken the decision to put in place a nil cap as part of their licensing scheme, but are now being challenged for doing so?

I thank the committee for its report, because it is vital work. The speeches by Carol Mochan and Willie Rennie were powerful in highlighting the pressures that primary care faces today. In my contribution, I want to make the links between the ambition of identifying alternative pathways to care and delivering to communities across Scotland. I also want to take the opportunity to talk about the evidence that we have had in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee and the work that I have been doing with the culture sector, in which social prescribing has come up in discussions time and again as something that is considered to be crucial for supporting people’s health and wellbeing.

On one level, it is inspiring to see the work in our communities. On another level, it is incredibly frustrating that it is now over a decade since the Christie commission’s recommendations on investing in prevention were made and we have not seen fast enough progress. So, I very much support the committee’s recommendation to map availability across Scotland. I think that that is important.

When we questioned the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport at our Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee evidence session in March, his timetable for action in social prescribing was to ensure that,

“by 2026, every general practitioner practice will have access to a mental health and wellbeing service,”

with the aim of helping

“to grow community mental health resilience and direct social prescribing at a grassroots level”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 17 March 2022; c 20-21.]

Although I welcome the ambition, it is years late. My frustration is that, although the cultural sector in Scotland is already providing fantastic wellbeing activities that are targeted to support people and help their wellbeing—even as the sector faces a perfect storm—we do not have a connecting delivery strategy to make the links between health and culture that we really need now.

We know from research that social prescribing works; we just need to get on with mainstreaming it and making it available to those who need it. Therefore, I very much welcome the health committee’s recommendations that we are debating today. In particular, I welcome the acknowledgment that cost is a key barrier for people on low incomes.

A University of Glasgow report from 2020 examined the impact of the link worker programme, which was a social prescribing initiative for areas of high deprivation in Glasgow that was designed to address health inequalities. Interviews were conducted with community organisation representatives and community links practitioners. The empirical evidence of the positive impact in areas of deprivation is really important to highlight. Social prescribing allowed people to be engaged who would otherwise not have benefited from services outside formal primary healthcare. A powerful quote from the research was that the challenge is in

“Reaching the people who are hardest to reach. The people that don’t realise that—although they might be aware of us, they don’t realise that we could actually help them.”

The study also reported an increase in the need for services at the same time as funding cuts have left organisations with massively reduced resource.

“Projectism” is what we call it in the CEEAC Committee, from the evidence that we have had. It is how cultural organisations have described the challenge that they face. With rising demand, organisations are focused on getting through crisis after crisis, but they are not able to do the long-term work on building relationships with the people who need it. From other research that was published last year, we know the challenge that social prescribing co-ordinators face following the shift towards delivering services digitally, so there is an awful lot that needs to be addressed now.

I highlight the point that social prescribing links our health and cultural sectors. It is crucial for post-Covid recovery to support people through the pressures and anxiety that are now coming through the cost of living crisis. It would be a practical way to promote health and wellbeing now and to avoid people getting further and further into the health system when there is a way to enable them to be supported now.

Practical work is being done now. Over the past 12 months, I have been able to hear from various organisations about the benefits that they are delivering with joined-up approaches. I had the pleasure of sponsoring the exhibition and reception to celebrate the incredible work that Art in Healthcare does to improve health and wellbeing by using visual art in healthcare settings, humanising our medical environments to support staff and patients. The University of Edinburgh’s prescribe culture pilot is aimed at increasing access, and the brochure for its take 30 together virtual programme is available and free to download. At a recent meeting of the cross-party group on culture and communities, we heard from people involved in the archive services at the University of Dundee about the huge benefits that social prescribing had for their mental health. Then there is the excellent work of the Tayside Healthcare Arts Trust.

I also highlight the fantastic work of National Museums Scotland on its museum socials. For seven years, as part of its learning programme, its community engagement team has hosted museum socials for people who live with dementia. They are an informal learning experience and give participants a range of opportunities to engage with national collections and wider social activities. The socials also support their family members.

The report that National Museums Scotland has done on health and wellbeing is superb. It is definitely well worth reading. We also have National Galleries of Scotland’s work on access to mindfulness, dementia-friendly access and a commitment to autism and sensory-friendly access.

That work needs continuing support, and we need similar projects right across the country so that every local community can access them. Although it is not just a question of funding, multiyear and predictable funding is essential. That is the constant message that we get from the cultural sector. After that, making links with the health sector is essential. I strongly support the committee’s call for action to support voluntary sector providers to address long-term financial viability. We are in a perfect storm, and the Scottish Government needs to address the issue now.

Physical activity prescribing is becoming more common and is delivering benefits for people and our health service, but we need culture prescribing to become legitimate, with clear political leadership from ministers, as the committee recommends. The committee’s suggestion of work to deliver a targeted communication strategy to raise awareness of the positive impact of social prescribing is really important. I hope that ministers will take that up.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Will the minister explain why the number of houses to be developed in Edinburgh has been reduced by 4,500 homes at a time when the city faces a long-standing, deepening housing crisis? Will he say whether new general practitioner and local health services will be included in planning proposals for the new housing that is proposed across the Lothians, given the challenges that we already face with GP capacity in areas where significant new development has taken place and is now being planned through NPF4?

I will be brief, because I know that we have to wind up at some point.

To follow on from the Eurovision comment, there is the whole issue of film and broadcast media. Broadcast media are fantastic at telling us what is happening now. However, we had a humanitarian emergency fund meeting last week, and I am wondering whether there is a space for more stories of the people who are helped by the fund or of what is happening next. That is partly about communicating culture. People are still creating drama and documentaries. Is there scope for our broadcast media in Scotland, such as the BBC, Channel 4 and STV, to do more work in that regard to communicate those stories, both in Scotland and more broadly?