Chamber and committees

I point out that it is not about sport for sport’s sake—it is about education through sport and physical activity. I would rather use that phrase, because everybody thinks, when I talk about sport, that I want to make people run eight 400m laps. That is not quite where I am at—I would not attempt that myself.

Moving on from that aspect, I go back to the question of data. Perhaps it would interest the cabinet secretary to look back at the work that the Health and Sport Committee did in the previous session of Parliament on sport and social prescribing. The data is incredibly important, as Professor Leitch highlighted when he discussed the importance of global data.

A lot of the evidence that we have gathered, which has followed the committee through from the previous session, shows that there is a lack of co-ordination in relation to data collection. That will hamper our ability to plan ahead and to reassess—recreate, if you like—the way in which we deliver healthcare.

On top of that, we do not have an information technology system in the NHS that is fit for purpose. For example, the data does not follow the patient from primary care into secondary care, and it does not link up with the third sector. We need all of that to happen.

When we discuss IT platforms, it is incredibly boring, but they are an incredibly important first step. I do not know where the Government is with that.

To be honest, I am disappointed with Mr Rowley’s characterisation of the matter, because it is entirely not the case.

The general public do not know that the majority of the rules that they face are not law, but guidance. They have been following them. My point is that the speed with which, as has been demonstrated, we can bring emergency legislation to the Parliament means that there is no need to continue with the emergency legislation that is in force. If it is required, it can be brought swiftly to the Parliament.

I reiterate to Mr Rowley that my opposition to the motions has nothing to do with party politics. The fact is that the majority of the rules that we follow are guidance, not law.

I want to return to the issue of excess deaths. It was mentioned that most of those are due in part to Covid. If I remember correctly—I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong—Covid is a contributing factor. For example, a high proportion of people—more than 60 per cent—of those who died of Covid, or whose deaths were Covid-related, were obese. For a third of deaths, diabetes was a factor.

Do we have an opportunity to reassess and reset how we deliver healthcare, and link that to factors that are outside of the NHS? I am talking about looking at the education system in the broadest sense. As Alex Rowley mentioned, there was a high incidence of Covid deaths among those in poverty. Do we have an opportunity, looking ahead, to reset healthcare? If you agree with that, how will the Government take up that opportunity?

I should probably declare an interest at this point, as I was a director of a healthcare tech company that worked on collaboration and communication platforms before I became an MSP.

The technology in question is not new and is available. On your point about not having to reset everything, I would say that we need to be able to suck data into a central platform, allow those data to talk to each other and then see how we can use the output. As we discussed the last time that you were here, I am suggesting that we do not have an IT system that can do that at the moment. If we are to move forward, that issue needs to be addressed, and I am happy to discuss that with you offline.

I want to follow up John Mason’s comments about occupied beds. Cabinet secretary, you alluded to the fact that we are starting to see a switch from beds being occupied by Covid cases to beds being taken up by patients with other conditions. That issue was also mentioned during the previous agenda item. Are we getting to a point at which the other conditions that have been delayed are beginning to present? Is that the next crisis that the NHS will face? Will dealing with delayed presentations maintain the pressure on it?

I want to follow on from John Mason’s questions about data.

In my time on the Health and Sport Committee in the previous session of Parliament, before Covid, one of the recurring themes was that we seem to be behind the curve in relation to not only how we collect data but how we analyse it. That has been exacerbated greatly by the pandemic. Do we now have an opportunity to reset how we collect data, to the benefit of the healthcare system, and use that data to drive Government policy on health?

In the previous parliamentary session, there was a recurring theme about how we could improve the way in which we collect and analyse data. To take that a stage further, I was interested to hear what Lawrence Cowan said about inequalities and how access to the work that his organisation does around group physical activity has been restricted because of Covid. That is more likely to happen in areas that are lower in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. I am thinking about the collection of data on physical activity throughout the pandemic and the impact on excess deaths related to that. Using that data alongside or cross-referencing it with the health data that we are talking about would probably help us to integrate the third sector offering into NHS offerings. Lawrence Cowan, do you have an opinion on that?

I will finish off my line of questioning by tying up what Dr Fenton has just said and Lawrence Cowan’s comments about the need to share data. This is probably a difficult question to put to you, Dr Fenton, but do we have an IT system that enables us to collect and analyse the data?

The question that you have raised about who owns the data and therefore how it can used that has exercised the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and its predecessor for a while. We will not get into that in this committee.

Lynda Fenton would like to come in.

Good morning, panel. I am interested in the potential impact of the bill. I want to look back on the way in which legislation was initially introduced in the Parliament two years ago, and the way in which we responded to coronavirus over the period of the pandemic. I note that it was an extended period—the pandemic did not happen to us suddenly. We watched coronavirus move around the world: from China, across Europe and into the UK and Scotland.

If it had existed back then, what difference would the legislation that is before us have made to the way in which we responded to coronavirus? The Parliament legislated quickly once a decision had been made, and I am struggling to understand what difference it would have made had the legislation existed in the first place. I ask Professor Hunter to answer that in the first instance.