Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you all very much. That is really helpful.

Can I ask you to say a little more about the variation within private provision? You have talked about quality, but there is also the price variation. How does that compare with the cost to the NHS of NHS diagnosis? We can acknowledge that somebody else is paying for it—the taxpayer is paying in one case and the individual is paying in the other—but does the cost of providing the service compare between the private sector and the NHS?

Thank you. Do any of the other witnesses want to talk about any aspects of this general theme of private provision?

Dani Cosgrove, do you want to come in?

May I check? Do you mean that some of the private providers are doing NHS work and private work?

The follow-up questions that I had about the variation in standards were mostly addressed, and there were also some comments about the desire for some clarity and consistency around shared care agreements.

My last question on this theme is this: if—and it is a big if—we need to use capacity outside the NHS to bridge the gap between the capacity and the demand that is there at the moment, is there a case for saying that that external capacity should be located in the third sector and that there should be an agreement between NHS providers and voluntary not-for-profit organisations that could operate to an agreed standard for an agreed price? That would be private in the sense that it is not the NHS, but it would not be paid for by individuals. Would that increase the capacity across the sector to meet demand more affordably and inclusively?

Good morning. My question is on aspects that are quite close to what you have just covered in your answers.

I go back to Matthew Day’s comment, right at the start of our discussion, about his organisation’s experience. Matthew, forgive me if I picked it up wrongly, but it sounded as though you said that you were being used to clear the backlog but were then dropped because the funding had ended, and that there was some frustration around that. However, at the same time, I hear from witnesses that voluntary sector, third sector or community-based organisations can be really effective at joining the dots across the various forms of support that people need—and do so in a much more inclusive way that we might wish the NHS would deliver, but which is not happening.

During the rest of the committee’s inquiry, and when we put questions to other witnesses, should we ask whether the voluntary sector should be given not just a temporary role to clear the backlog but an on-going, long-term role to deliver assessments and diagnoses in concert with other forms of support? Should we explore whether the voluntary sector could be effective not only in clearing the backlog but also in the long term? Should we consider whether it could meet people’s needs not only in relation to assessment and diagnostic issues but more widely and holistically, and whether that approach could be cost effective when compared with scaling up capacity in the NHS?

The comment that I quoted is from the Culture for Climate Scotland written submission, which the committee has already published. It sounds as though your answer is that there is a much more flexible approach than our witnesses were under the impression there is to finding a balance between funding more organisations and providing a higher level of funding. That is a helpful steer.

You spoke about cross-portfolio approaches. A number of witnesses talked about the difficulties and barriers that they face in making the argument that a piece of work is more than just a culture project. Is it a climate project? Is it a health project? Is it an education project? Is it a communities project? It might be all of those things, but there are significant barriers to taking a holistic approach to funding.

I will give the specific example of the National Galleries Scotland art works project at Granton, which you will be well aware of. We were told that the project will meet many different public policy objectives that the Government supports. Anne Lyden told us:

“I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary has supported this project and would like to see it happen.”

I hope that that is true, and I would like to see it happen as well. She added that

“there is a question around whether the rest of the Cabinet and Government can see how it will perform in those areas”—

that is, beyond the culture portfolio—

“and agree that, because it will deliver those cross-portfolio benefits, it requires investment from those portfolios.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 24.]

You have talked about the need to do cross-portfolio work better. What specifically will change? What will be different about the way that such decisions are made between portfolios in the future in order to make it less of a problem than it clearly has been in the past?

I am not asking for your thoughts on those people; I am asking for a recognition that we need to fly less.

Thank you, convener—I apologise for coming in just a few seconds late at the start of the meeting.

Good morning to our witnesses. I will start with the question that the convener started with, and which Mr Kerr touched on, about the tension between more organisations and higher levels of funding. You have given a lot of useful information on that, but I am struggling to get a real sense of clarity about whether a definitive approach is being deliberately taken in that respect. Last week, the committee heard from witnesses who were clearly under the impression that a clear, established policy approach is being taken, which is that more organisations will be funded, rather than organisations being funded to a higher level. You talked about the proportion of an ask that is met, but people are going to make their bids based on what they think that they are going to get.

Are organisations being supported, for example, to cover the additional costs for meeting fair work principles or higher energy costs? Are they being supported to bid for their increased costs, or is there a definitive policy position—our witnesses last week were clearly under the impression that there is—that the funding will go to more organisations, rather than reaching a higher level?