Chamber and committees

I have a couple of wee follow-up questions. Last week, we heard that some general practitioners might need help to diagnose mesh complications. What help is being provided to primary care to enable GPs to know that the service exists? What help and support will be given to GPs so that they are better able to refer?

Good morning. I am interested in issues around total versus partial mesh removal. Some of the procedures are quite complicated and subsequent surgeries might be required. Does the bill cover the wider requirements of women who need concomitant surgeries?

We heard earlier about a person who needed additional time because of a pre-existing condition that needed to be managed with constrained thrombolytic therapy. If somebody required additional time because of additional health conditions, would that be included, too?

Greig Chalmers has already alluded to this issue. The financial memorandum says:

“It is expected, upon establishment of a scheme, that all applications will be made within one year of the scheme opening.”

I presume that that is because the scheme will be advertised on social media and because you will know who has had mesh implant surgery. Is the one-year timeframe narrow, or do you think that it is reasonable?

Does that affect the labelling of products as well? Health-harming products might contain certain chemicals that are used in food production. I note that NFU Scotland is calling for clear country-of-origin labelling. Do the provisions in the bill bleed into those issues?

I will be quick. What are the cabinet secretary’s concerns about professional regulation? Our briefing paper says that the UK Government recognises that it might want to reform

“the overarching system of healthcare professional regulation.”

Are there concerns about that? Obviously, we have our own healthcare workforce that we need to support, look after and protect.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a question on the advertising of food and drink products that are less healthy and might be harmful. You said that you want to have a four-nations approach, but I am interested in how we discern what is reserved and what is devolved. We want to take forward legislation that works for us in Scotland as we try to tackle obesity and reduce alcohol consumption. I note the recommendations in the recent report by the British Heart Foundation. How can we prevent legislation that we develop being impinged upon by UK Government legislation?

I am interested in issues and ideas around fair work, recruitment and retention. My first job, before I started my nurse training, was in a care home, although that was a long time ago. What should we do to support recruitment and retention, aside from considering wages? A band 5 staff nurse gets about £15 an hour, and they train for three years, with knowledge and skills development, competency demonstration and assessment. Does there need to be more structure in education in order to encourage recruitment and retention and so that people’s roles are perceived as skilled jobs, whether they work in home care, in a residential home or in a nursing home?

In the Health and Sport Committee, we took evidence on shifting the balance of care and moving finances into a social prescribing model. One of the things that I am interested in is the prevention of type 2 diabetes complications. We spend lots of money mitigating or treating complications—£800 million is a lot of money—when those complications are preventable.

What is the value of social prescribing? Should it really be invested in more in order to help to improve health and tackle inequalities? I am interested in that because of the previous committee work on social prescribing. Maybe we should start with David Walsh.

Thanks, Gillian, but I do not actually have a supplementary question—I was just correcting a spelling mistake in the chat box. [Laughter.]