Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to that, how do you anticipate that the provision of services might respond to the findings of the BMA’s evaluation in the event that its findings are at odds with those of the Cass review?

I thank the witnesses for their very helpful evidence. The committee intends to take further evidence on the review of gender identity services for children and young people from the chief medical officer at a future meeting.

Good morning, and welcome to the 24th meeting in 2024 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I have received no apologies. We are joined online by Paul Sweeney.

The first item on our agenda is a decision on whether to take in private items 4 and 5, and whether to take equivalent items in private at future meetings. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Who would like to start?

Do witnesses agree with the BMA’s call for the implementation of the Cass review recommendations to be paused, pending the conclusion of the BMA task and finish group, which is expected to be towards the end of this year?

The third item on our agenda is consideration of one negative instrument, the Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Amounts) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2024.

The purpose of the instrument is to amend the Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Amounts) (Scotland) Regulations 2006, in order to increase the charges recovered from persons who pay compensation in cases where an injured person receives national health service hospital treatment or ambulance services. The increase in charges relates to an uplift for cost inflation in hospital and community health services.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 10 September 2024 and made no recommendations in relation to the instrument. No motion to annul the instrument has been lodged.

As members have no comments, I propose that the committee should not make any recommendations in relation to this negative instrument. I note that no member disagrees.

At our next meeting, we will take evidence as part of the committee’s further scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

Thank you. Before I start my questions, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

We had Dr Cass at committee on 7 May this year and we asked her about some of the criticisms that there have been of the methodology that she used. I am sure that the witnesses are aware that, since she gave her evidence to the committee, the British Medical Association has voted in favour of a motion which asks the BMA to publicly critique the Cass review, and subsequently the BMA created a task and finish group. To what extent do the witnesses accept that the Cass report is based on scientific methodology, or do you have any concerns?

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session to inform the committee’s scrutiny of the proposed national outcomes, which were recently published by the Scottish Government as part of its periodic review of the national performance framework. I welcome to the committee Emma Congreve, co-lead of the Scottish Health Equity Research Unit, and Professor Cameron Donaldson, professor of health economics at Glasgow Caledonian University.

We will move straight to questions and I will start. What are the witnesses’ views on the proposed new care outcome?

That was very helpful. We will explore more of those themes as we go through the evidence session.

Audit Scotland highlighted the need for better support structures for both paid and unpaid carers. Professor Donaldson referenced unpaid carers. How might the NPF capture the role of unpaid carers?

I am mindful of the time, so I ask that questions and answers be sharper, please, if people do not mind.