Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have positive data on the increase in intake of student nurses and midwives, and that data speaks for itself. It might be difficult to say that the bursary has caused that increase but it would be fair to say that the package of support that we give to students, including bursaries, has been a factor in that.

There are also challenges, and the paramedic bursary is a really good example of that. There was an excellent campaign that was run by a number of student paramedics, and when I met them, they were very clear that, without the bursary, they did not think that they could continue. The anecdotal data is there. The workforce numbers that we have on the student intake are positive.

There are also some well-known and well-rehearsed areas where we have struggled with intake. We know and have often talked about the level of vacancies in our nursing cohort in particular, and we will work hard to fill those. However, we are in a competitive place because people in health systems around the world are looking to do the same thing. I think that Scotland is an attractive proposition, with the best-paid staff in the UK. Scotland offers an excellent lifestyle and remote, rural and island Scotland, in particular, offers a lifestyle that many people seek. We are going to have to maximise every one of those potential avenues to meet the ambitions of our plan.

That is a good question. I can give you confidence that prevention is not viewed in isolation in health and social care, although it is, of course, vital to those of us in health and social care. The Deputy First Minister convenes—with a great degree of regularity—a group of cabinet secretaries and ministers that is focused almost entirely on prevention. Our recent announcements on the child poverty action plan are an excellent example of our coming together across a number of portfolios to work hard to deal with the issue of child poverty as it exists, but also to prevent more young people, children and families from getting into poverty, and setting out how we plan to do that. Such cross-Government, cross-portfolio working is vital.

Improving physical and mental health before crisis point is an important focus for us. There is a lot of focus on child and adolescent mental health services. That is understandable, because there are challenges around CAMHS referrals. I accept that, which is why we will put in significant investment. However, we are also putting significant investment into prevention, before people get to crisis point. For example, we are looking at what we can do in our schools as regards education in and around mental health.

On physical health, too, a lot of preventative work is being done. We are thinking about how we can make physical health opportunities, such as those that are offered by sport, more accessible. I am not talking only about sporting opportunities at the elite level, important though those are. Last week, we celebrated 10 years of the daily mile. My colleague Maree Todd deserves a shout-out for her vociferous championing of that project. We are trying to make opportunities to improve physical health as accessible as possible.

I can give you an absolute assurance that we have—and have had for many years—a laser-like focus on the preventative agenda, but I go back to Ms Mackay’s point about our data on the areas of highest deprivation, where, unfortunately, the health inequalities are still too wide. Those areas will be areas of particular focus for us in the coming period.

That is vital. There is not much for me to say except to agree ferociously with Ms Mochan on that point. We know how important those allied health professionals are, particularly when we think of the work that they do with GPs and multidisciplinary teams, which is just one example of how important they are. They are clearly part of our plan for the recovery of the NHS and social care.

That is a really good question. On the gaps or barriers that we see at the moment relating to the sharing of data, work to remove those barriers is already taking place. That does not need another strategy or document necessarily. The issues are well known, we have been working on them for many years and we will continue to try to work through some of them.

If you look at our digital health and care strategy—I was looking at it again this morning—you will see that it has three key aims, the second of which is around the sharing of data and having a system that allows

“staff to record, access and share relevant information across the health and care system”.

It is really important that that is done in a way that not only removes the barriers but does so—I will speak frankly—within the financial constraints that we are under.

I highlight page 18 of the strategy, which talks about our digital foundation, the national digital platform and the importance of the cloud-based infrastructure. The strategy is not about upending every IT system across the NHS and social care and replacing it in its entirety with one system; it is about using cloud-based architecture, which can allow you to share information better.

The new data strategy will be an overarching strategy. It will talk about how important it is for people to be able to access their own data, how that data will be safely and ethically managed, safely stored and so on. It will also be an iterative strategy, so it will continue to be developed. It will not delay any of the current work that is being done to address the issue of the availability of data, whether at primary care, secondary care or community level.

The question about the recovery plan is fair. It is purposely a five-year recovery plan. We will, of course, update Parliament yearly, as the plan says; that update will happen when Parliament returns from the summer recess, which will be a year since the plan was published.

Ms Webber, and I suspect everybody around the table, would accept that we are not out of the pandemic yet. Not only are we not out of it, but the most recent wave of the pandemic that we dealt with has been the most challenging wave—it has been relentless. In relation to the alpha and delta waves of the pandemic—the early variants of Covid—we knew that a wave would hit us really hard for two to three months, after which we would hope to get out the other side and try to recover, but we have had wave after wave after wave.

The omicron wave hit us around December, then omicron seamlessly transitioned into BA.2, which was an even more transmissible variant of a sub-lineage of omicron, and we exited that wave only recently. That wave lasted for four or five months during the height of winter pressures. It was not its severity—it was less severe than previous variants—but its transmissibility that was the issue. That wave knocked out entire wards, including orthopaedic wards, in hospitals across the country, so there is no doubt that recovery has been hampered.

The foundations of the recovery plan are solid—for example, we are doing work with the centre for sustainable delivery to ensure that we drive innovation, and we are working on our national treatment centres. We hope to have a number of NTCs on board in the next 18 months. I recently announced the purchase of Carrick Glen hospital, which will not come on board during those 18 months, but it will be a crucial national treatment centre when it opens.

When we have lulls in pressure, the NHS has been able to recover to some degree. For example—John Burns will correct me if am wrong—the last monthly statistics that were published showed around a 17 per cent increase in the number of performed operations. The NHS is able to recover. However, I will not lie: recovery will be difficult and tough, and the biggest threat by far to recovery is future variants of the virus.

Nonetheless, I think that our recovery plan will deliver. I suspect that that is why the other nations of the UK published similar recovery plans after ours. The recovery plans of the UK Government and the Welsh Government are not at all dissimilar to ours. Everybody recognises that things will not be fixed in a year but will take time.

Good morning. I hope that you are all keeping well and keeping safe.

I thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the amendment to the Health and Care Bill regarding the extension of the offences in the Human Tissue Act 2004 and the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 to cover the supply of human organs outside the UK.

The LCM before the committee is the third supplementary LCM for the Health and Care Bill that I have placed before the Scottish Parliament. I have written to the UK minister, Mr Argar, to express my concern about having to make several requests for valuable parliamentary time to be spent on considering the legislation as a result of the piecemeal way in which the bill and the UK Government’s engagement with the Scottish Government have been handled.

The amendment includes provisions for additional criminal offences when a person who is habitually resident in Scotland, or who is a UK national, travels outside the UK to buy, or to in any way arrange a form of reward for, an organ. In my LCM, I have recommended that the Parliament grant legislative consent to the UK Government’s amendment. Although we do not have any evidence to suggest that the small number of people who live in Scotland who have organ transplants abroad pay for their organs, the Scottish Government is committed to tackling unethical organ donation practices. The amendment would deter anyone who might want to consider travelling abroad and paying for an organ, and it would allow progress to be made towards implementation of the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

We need to be careful here. We know of a small number of instances of individuals going abroad for organ transplants—mainly kidney transplants. Indeed, a constituent of mine went abroad for such a reason, and, as far as we know, there was nothing to suggest that anything unethical happened in that respect. There are protocols and processes in place to ensure that we in Scotland are informed if anyone goes abroad for an organ transplant.

You are right to say that, once an individual has had an organ transplant, things might come out in the conversation about the aftercare that they receive in Scotland, and a clinician would then have to judge whether anything would need to be reported, because there had been a breach of the law or because an offence had been committed.

The legislation does not put an onus on clinicians to do that. Indeed, I suspect that they have to make these really difficult judgments all the time. Of course, I do not need to tell Emma Harper that. Given her background, I am sure that she well understands the situation. In some respects, the change in the law might be an additional bit of information for those working on organ donations and transplants and aftercare, and they should be made aware of it.

That is an excellent question. Ultimately, we do not want anyone to have any reason to go abroad for a transplant, and a lot of work is being done in that area. I am happy to give more detail about that, but I would just note that a core theme of our “Donation and Transplantation Plan for Scotland: 2021-2026” is to increase the availability of transplants. I suppose that, in this respect, an important aspect of the plan is its focus on increasing the number of living kidney donors. As I said earlier, the majority of transplants that have been undertaken abroad have been kidney transplants.

We are also working to encourage people from as many diverse backgrounds as possible to come forward for to donate organs, which is key. In many instances, people of similar ethnic backgrounds will be a better match for organ donation. I hope that if more people from more diverse backgrounds come forward, that will militate against the need—or perception that there is a need—for someone to have to go to another country where there are donors with their ethnic background to get a possible match. A lot of good work is being done, and I commend the “Donation and Transplantation Plan for Scotland: 2021 to 2026” to the member if she has not had the chance to see it yet.

You make an important point. Because of the way in which the UK Government’s amendment has been brought forward and the requirement for an LCM, there has been a very limited amount of consultation. That is the source of our frustration, which, in turn, limits our ability to consult.

As you would imagine, we have consulted our clinical advisers on organ donation. The national group on organ donation has managed to take a view, and no concerns have emerged. In principle, we are in agreement with what the amendment seeks to do. However, if we had had more time—if the process had been gone through in a more structured and less ad hoc way—we would have been able to have more meaningful and deeper consultation with a variety of stakeholders.

No, it should not require any further amendment. My understanding is that this UK-wide legislation—which, as I should have said in my opening remarks, does not include Northern Ireland; because of elections, its Parliament is not sitting—does not require anything further from us. I am happy for officials to elaborate on that, but if the Parliament agrees to the LCM, we will not be required to make any further legislative amendments.