Chamber and committees

The key thing to remember is that patients are central to this, so their experiences are really important to move it forward. I urge the cabinet secretary to make sure that there is a serious commitment to alternative pathways, because we all believe that that will ensure good outcomes for patients.

I am really pleased that you have listened to the evidence, cabinet secretary. It is clear from the evidence that patients see GPs as the gold standard, so it is understandable that they sometimes find this alternative way of working quite difficult. It is our responsibility to try to support them to use these new routes in a way that makes them feel engaged and valued and that they are getting the best treatment.

It is clear from the evidence that the committee has taken—and I hear this in my constituency all the time as well—that patients feel a bit passed around; they feel that the systems are not working very well and that there is no clear leadership at the health board level on how those pathways work. We have also heard quite a number of times about people who have gone all the way round the system and back again. I would suggest that there is some urgency around sorting that out and that it probably requires some serious financial investment. Where are you with that in relation to your plans for the next few years?

I want to take this opportunity to raise what is an extremely important issue as we change pathways. Screening definitely needs looked at, because the significant difference in uptake, particularly among women and girls in deprived areas, can lead to very different outcomes. Cabinet secretary, are you prioritising screening? Are you ensuring that opportunities are taken up in deprived groups, particularly as pathways change?

This is an important question. As it makes changes, particularly to primary care, does the Scottish Government ensure that all its policies and practices are health inequality proofed?

Yes—I will do so very quickly as I know that we are tight for time.

Is there somewhere to which you could direct the committee where we could ask for that work to be done? Would it be NES? Where could we get that work progressed?

That is lovely. Thanks very much.

Dr Marshall made an excellent point when he talked about how people’s access to money is linked to health.

My question is on allied health professionals. The evidence that we have heard today and on other days makes it clear that they can help in terms of inequalities in health. Do we have enough information about which AHPs are in primary care settings and whether there is a weighting towards areas that might need more of that support? Is more work needed on that?

Fiona Collie mentioned carers a number of times, and they are an important part of the discussion. We know that unpaid carers provide the bulk of our social care. There is a thought that some carers are unaware of exactly what their rights are, or of what is in place to support them. Will the witnesses, particularly Fiona Collie, share some of their thoughts on that with us? What are the key things that we should be thinking about in relation to providing a new strategy for supporting carers to ensure that they get what they are entitled to?

It is very welcome that both the minister and the cabinet secretary have indicated that, in what is a crisis, we should be dealing with things that we can deal with now.

I am interested to know their opinion on the low-income winter heating assistance scheme, which is out for consultation, although it is not pencilled in to start until next winter. Do they agree with me that that is far too late? I would be interested to know about the discussions on that. To what extent are we taking into account the views of the energy suppliers over those of the people who actually need the assistance—and who need it now, as I think we are all agreed?

I am quite new to the subject matter and I want to put on record that I am interested in the way the matter has progressed. Similar to other members, I have been involved in the mesh debate with women in relation to transvaginal mesh. It is important that we use the evidence that we have from other areas.

I support the overall sentiment of the petition: it is a perfectly reasonable request that a review is held and that guidelines around the surgical use of mesh are established. The petitioners have brought evidence to the minister and the committee has gone over other evidence. It is incumbent on us to ensure that reasonable requests are respected; it seems reasonable for the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee to take action and at least further scrutinise what can be done to support the petition.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I hope to keep an eye on what is happening around mesh for those people.

Everything seems to have been put in place—quite rightly—to make things work as smoothly as they can. However, if there was a suggestion that any of the Governments wished to dispute anything or withdraw from the agreement, how would that work? How would the Scottish Government bring that to us, as parliamentarians?