Chamber and committees

I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The hospital at home service in Scotland has been welcomed by patients who receive hospital-level care in their own homes, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to expanding it. It is arguably most valuable in rural and island communities, where healthcare facilities might be far away. Will the cabinet secretary set out how patients in those communities are already benefiting and what more we can expect as the service grows?

I thank the committee for its work on this important topic and for its comprehensive and detailed report. The on-going requests from organisations, individuals and members’ bills seeking to significantly increase the number of commissioners and, thereby, SPCB-supported bodies, has caused me great concern, so I could not agree more with the report’s conclusions that any future proposals for new bodies and roles must satisfy the two-tier criteria of justification and effectiveness tests.

The landscape is already complex, as we have heard from other members. Many people are unclear about the remits of the SPCB-supported bodies; how they can access and use their services; and what, if any, support the bodies can offer individuals. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and any overlap to fully inform decisions on future size, structure and coherence.

In my role as convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I was recently involved in the recruitment process to appoint the first Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, which is a role that was approved by the Parliament in the week of the Cumberlege report. Among other functions that are attached to their role, they have powers to investigate healthcare safety issues, to amplify patients’ voices, to report on safety issues and to make recommendations for how those should be addressed. The newly appointed commissioner will play a vital role as an independent public advocate for us all as national health service patients.

Just yesterday, I was pleased to vote at stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in support of the establishment of a victims and witnesses commissioner. If the Parliament accepts the committee’s recommendations that we are discussing in the debate, those recommendations would of course be adhered to in the establishment of that post. Of particular relevance are the recommendations on the requirements for a clear functional need for any role and a clearly defined remit. As we know, the establishment of the victims and witnesses commissioner has strong stakeholder support, particularly for their ability to hold the Scottish Government and criminal justice bodies to account.

The creation of the victims and witnesses commissioner responds directly to calls for change from victims and bereaved families. That is a key point, which I have reflected on in the light of the appointment of the new Patient Safety Commissioner. We will all have raised concerns on behalf of constituents about healthcare issues, and the new commissioner will play a vital role in advocating for systematic improvement in safety. However, I wonder how much the public currently know about the new commissioner’s remit. Specifically, a shared understanding needs to be developed that the Patient Safety Commissioner will not undertake casework, complaints or advocacy on behalf of individuals or families.

I am sure that this new commissioner’s office, as it beds in, will have opportunities for public engagement and to raise awareness about the bounds of its remit. However, that is an example of how increasing the number of SPCB-supported bodies risks causing confusion and unnecessary complexity for people who are often experiencing a very difficult time in their lives and are seeking help, support and redress.

With that in mind, I particularly welcome the recommendations in paragraph 150 of the committee’s report on the need for simplicity and accessibility. It states:

“The body’s purpose must be easily understandable to the public. If it has a public-facing role, it must also be designed to ensure”

digital and physical accessibility so that people

“who require its services or support can engage with it promptly, effectively, and without unnecessary barriers.”

Finally, I welcome the committee’s recommendations that, in the next parliamentary session, there should be a committee with specific responsibility for scrutinising SPCB-supported bodies. We all know how busy our existing committees are and the level of demand that is placed on committee time with legislation, budget scrutiny and other inquiries. A dedicated committee with a remit to hold those bodies to account and to scrutinise their effectiveness or otherwise would have the time and scope to look in detail at the work that they do.

SPCB-supported bodies come at a significant cost to the public purse, and we must be confident that their existence is justifiable, offers value for money and is effectively improving lives and people’s experiences of services.

I thank the committee and its clerks for their work on the issue and commend their report. I hope that the committee’s recommendations will gain cross-party support.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance.

At next week’s meeting, we will take evidence from the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League on topical themes including the sustainability of Scottish youth football and promoting children and young people’s participation in sport and physical activity. That concludes the public part of our meeting today.

The next item on the agenda is oral evidence on the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27. I welcome the first of our two panels of witnesses. Emma Congreve is co-lead of the Scottish Health Equity Research Unit, University of Strathclyde; Professor Colin McKay is professor of mental health and capacity law, Edinburgh Napier University; Calum MacLeod is senior policy and public affairs officer, Mental Health Foundation; and Craig Smith is public affairs and policy manager, Scottish Action for Mental Health.

We will move straight to questions. I call Emma Harper.

Welcome back. Under agenda item 2, we will continue to take oral evidence as part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27. I welcome to the committee Duncan Black, who is chief officer for finance and resources at Glasgow city health and social care partnership, and Hamish Hamilton, who is chief finance officer at West Lothian IJB. We will move straight to questions.

We are rapidly running out of time and we have one final theme to cover. If witnesses could be concise in their answers, that would be very helpful.

Good morning, and welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2025 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I have received apologies from Joe FitzPatrick and Sandesh Gulhane. Jackie Dunbar joins us as a substitute member.

Under agenda item 1, does the committee agree to take items 3 and 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course.

I thank the panel for their evidence. We will suspend briefly to change witnesses.

The Clydebridge works, which the minister referenced in his statement, is in my Rutherglen constituency. It has not been fully operational for a number of years, but it occupies a substantial footprint in Cambuslang. Constituents have raised with me their concerns about various issues, including historical land contamination and the impact that that could have on alternative use of the land and on the local environment. Will the minister advise what, if any, discussions have taken place on the future of the site?