Chamber and committees

Sue Webber’s point about the eye operation was pertinent, but I am not aware that such advice is in statute. My question is this: why do we need to put something into statute, via this particular bill, when it happens routinely in other areas without being in statute? The issue is what should be in statute, what should be in regulations and what should be part of training, and those are different things. Putting everything into statute is not necessarily the best idea, particularly given that techniques change and things advance. Is there any suggestion that such a process is in statute for anything else?

Yes. Thank you for taking an intervention. We have seen examples from other parts of the world where individual choice is effectively removed. My concern is that we are joining dots and assuming that a set of circumstances will come about if we do not have an institutional opt-out. I just feel as though there are dots being joined ahead—

Will you take an intervention?

I am trying to understand the point. You made the point that the Salvation Army is an organisation, and part of that involves, in effect, providing people’s homes. Are you saying that, when someone is dying in their own home, they should not be allowed to access the provisions of this legislation if they qualify and wish to do so? Should the Salvation Army be allowed to block people from carrying out, in their own homes, a decision that they have made? Or any other organisation? You mentioned the Salvation Army but it is obviously much wider than that.

I am very sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve in these amendments, but, given the way in which they are worded, it seems like the directive is less a voluntary thing and more something that has to be done. The amendments seem to be saying, “You must have an advance care directive,” whereas I believe very much that it should be a matter of patient choice. My concern is that, if patients do not want an advance care directive, they should not have to have one. I think that you said that that was your intention, so I wonder whether it would be better if the wording could be finessed and the amendment brought back at stage 3, in order to make it clear that the provision is not saying, “You must have this in order to proceed.”

That is nonsense.

Thank you.

I will move on to resources. Key message 5 talks about the challenges of getting a clear assessment of what resources and skills are required. The report also talks about how local government spending has gone up and Scottish Government funding for the Promise has increased, but it highlights the challenges of understanding how that funding is being allocated. It is obviously complex to know where the money is going and how it is being spent. On page 32, you highlight the challenges that arise because of differences in local systems. If the children’s services are part of the integration joint board, as you have suggested, it is more difficult to get clarity. We need to add to that the NHS’s contribution. How do we understand how the money is managing to flow if we have all these different systems? While respecting that different areas will want to do things differently—that is important for local democracy—how can we get consistency of understanding how the money is spent, so that we can ensure that the funding that has been allocated is being used and we can monitor that?

It is good that there are really short timescales for some of the targets. Identifying the children’s services planning partnerships that do not have the Promise as a priority and making sure that they do is a responsibility for all of us on the committee. The Promise is not just about the Government, it is about all of society. As MSPs, we need to check that our children’s services are including the Promise as a priority, as it should be, and encourage them to do so if not.

Obviously, funding will always be a challenge. You mentioned that this is more than just about funding. Resources are wider than that. There are some suggestions of local partnerships where resources are redirected into more preventative spending so that the care experience can be improved without detriment to other parts of the system by changing the way we do things. Are there any examples that you would like to flag, particularly for folk listening in, of where that has happened and worked well? I guess that folk listening will be concerned that, if we are going to spend money here, that will be to the detriment of other areas. However, that is not always the case if we get it right. I know that it is not easy, so it would be good to hear where there are examples of good practice.

Good morning. I think that you have partly answered this question, but it would be good to hear about the background to the review, what spurred its being set up as an independent review and what its remit was. You have partly answered that, but could you give us a bit more detail on the remit and some information on how you went about carrying out your work?

Okay. Thank you.