Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Sandesh, you can maybe come back to this when we move on to theme 3. We seem to be straying off-piste a little bit from your supplementary question.

Professor Collins, I am sorry to interrupt you, but we will come on to that specific theme a bit later on, so rather than pre-empt some of my colleagues’ questions, we should hold fire on that one.

I call Tess White.

If you are concise—and if the answers are concise—you have time for two.

Sandesh Gulhane has a brief supplementary.

I thank the panel for their evidence this morning. It should certainly help the committee in its work and its scrutiny of the national outcomes.

At next week’s meeting, we will take evidence from representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Lothian on the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, followed by the first of a series of oral evidence-taking sessions as part of the committee’s further scrutiny of stage 2 of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting.