Chamber and committees

The second item on the agenda is our first evidence session on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. I will run through our witnesses, starting with those who are in the room. We have Professor Sir Harry Burns, who is professor of practice and special adviser at the University of Strathclyde; and Nick Kempe, who is the convener of the Common Weal’s care reform group. Online, we have Professor Jon Glasby, who is professor of health and social care at the University of Birmingham; Professor Catherine Hennessy, who is professor of ageing at the University of Stirling; and Professor Catherine Needham, who is professor of public policy and public management at the University of Birmingham and is involved in the Economic and Social Research Council’s centre for care. Welcome, everyone.

I will go round all the witnesses to get their initial thoughts on the bill. First, I mention to colleagues that we will not have time for every witness to answer every question. Therefore, I ask that they do not follow my lead and that they direct their questions to individuals, otherwise we will quickly run out of time and we will not get through all our themes.

I will ask the key high-level question. Does this framework bill adequately meet the objectives of delivering potentially better health outcomes for people who receive care, and does it meet the needs of those who require assistance with the care of a family member?

I will go to Professor Hennessy first.

That is not what I asked.

I will pass over to my colleague Tess White.

Thank you, Tess. Sandesh Gulhane wants to come in.

Is there a comparison to make between the Government’s approach in implementing the social security system, whereby it went round the country and spoke to people about their experiences of social security, and the approach that it is taking now, whereby it has a national care forum—the first of the meetings was in Perth last month—that involves people from the third sector and people who are experiencing social care systems throughout Scotland? Is there a comparison that we can draw between the success of that approach to social security and this approach? How important might that be as we implement the bill?

Okay. In that case, we move on to theme 5, which is about how the bill will assist us in making headway on its policy aims. The questioning on that will be led by Paul O’Kane.

Sandesh Gulhane has a question on that theme.

The petition was referred to us, so perhaps it is best that we do not have much more ping-ponging than there has already been—

We need to make a decision. I agree with David Torrance that we should close petition PE1915, for the reasons that he set out. We should keep the other three petitions open and use them as a springboard for scrutiny of rural healthcare and addressing all the issues that the petitioners have raised, and we should get the cabinet secretary in to give evidence. I favour Gillian Mackay’s approach of writing to the rural health boards, but we should keep in mind what Sandesh Gulhane said—namely, that we need to hear from all rural health boards. When we ask them to come in front of the committee, it should not always be the same ones but all of them. We cannot compel people to come in front of the committee, but everyone should take the opportunity to talk about what they are doing to address those issues.

Are we agreed on Gillian’s and David’s approach?

Members indicated agreement.