Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do any of the witnesses have concerns that there might have been unforeseen negative impacts on health-related outcomes that have not been picked up by the Public Health Scotland evaluation? Are there any other aspects that you would have liked to have been measured or that you have found it difficult or impractical to evaluate? For example, I have concerns about potential substitution with benzodiazepines—so-called street Valium.

Are there any other strong or particular views?

Have you any modelling evidence of what scale the public health supplement could be set at relative to MUP and the overall split price share?

Clearly, the impact on retail revenue is difficult to ascertain given the lack of data that has just been described by panel members. We have also just heard from the representative of the Association of Cider Makers. I am keen to understand more about the secondary impacts on manufacturing. Is there any evidence from brewers and distillers that the feared consequences for their industries following the introduction of MUP have come about, such as reduced revenues for manufacturers or the discontinuation of certain products? Can the panellists point to any specific instances of effects on firms or products?

I have concerns about the statutory instrument being recommended to Parliament because the Scottish Government has set the rates above inflation for the past three financial years to help to redress the costs of providing personal and nursing care, which have increased significantly, and payments have not kept pace with that. By its own admission, the rate increase in line with inflation is insufficient to meet the rising real costs of delivering personal care.

The Scottish Government expects members to trust in its vision—which we have not yet seen—for a national care service that, in its own words, delivers “consistent and high standards”, but the statutory instrument demonstrates an inability to adequately resource a basic tenet of social care. I will not vote against the statutory instrument, but I have concerns about recommending to Parliament the rate, which falls short of what local government needs to provide personal care.

That is great and very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to return to the committee to discuss such an important issue.

I am really pleased to be here to support the petition, and I was pleased to work with community link workers and the GMB trade union over the summer period in opposition to proposals from the Glasgow city health and social care partnership to cut the number of community link workers in Glasgow from 70 positions to 42. With the Scottish Government stepping in and awarding the partnership the money to maintain the level of community link worker posts in the city, it might on the face of it seem that the petitioner’s ask has been met. However, the intervention was made only after some months of uncertainty and significant distress among the workforce and associated GP practices.

Indeed, the petition’s latter ask, which is to secure the long-term future of these roles, is the fundamental issue for the committee’s consideration today. It is clear, certainly to me, that the current model of yearly funding awards for community link worker posts across the country does not provide sufficient job security or forward planning capacity for the workers, or sufficient consistency for the deep-end GP practice teams, for whom the community link worker posts are crucial as part of wider team efforts to support vulnerable patients.

Link workers play an invaluable role in communities, particularly those with high levels of deprivation. They work with patients on personal, social and financial issues that are not necessarily clinical, such as housing benefits, loneliness, isolation and debt, which not only improves outcomes for the patients but helps to free up valuable GP time. As we all know, GPs are already hard pressed to support other patients with clinical needs.

Evidence of the value of the link worker role is not merely anecdotal. Indeed, as the petitioner has highlighted to the committee in his submission, there is a proven social return on such investment. Under the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland community link worker programme in Glasgow, 7,800 people were supported in 2022, at a cost of £2.1 million, which generated around £3 million in gross value added, £800,000 in cost savings, £500,000 in tax revenues and, crucially, £18.2 million in wellbeing benefits for communities in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. That equates to a benefit of £8.79 for every £1 of public money invested, which is an impressive ratio.

The positive impact that community link workers have on patients, GP surgeries and the local area in which the service is provided has been clearly demonstrated. Long-term funding is therefore necessary to ensure that that positive impact is sustainable and given best effect, to allow GP surgeries to plan ahead and to give the workforce the basic job security that I think we all agree is reasonable.

Therefore, I encourage the committee to keep the petition open and to invite the Scottish Government to review its current model for funding link workers through health and social care partnerships, with a view to looking at a longer-term funding model. Perhaps the committee would consider taking submissions from the Glasgow city health and social care partnership, the trade union that represents the workers concerned—the GMB—and deep-end GP practices, representatives of which could perhaps describe in detail the benefits that the posts provide to their practices. That is a starter for 10. Thank you for listening to me.

The Glasgow city health and social care partnership.

Thank you, colleagues.

In that case, am I correct in saying that, if I were to search for an individual, I could search only one doctor’s register? Would I then have to go to a separate webpage to search for physician associates and anaesthesia associates?