³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Section 36 outlines information-sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person centred, section 36 should be amended so that it outlines measures to ensure citizens’ control of and access to their data, and a digital choice approach.

My two amendments in the group—amendments 118 and 119—seek to ensure that the care records that will be established under the bill will align with best practice in human rights data approaches and digital choice frameworks. By embedding clear rights in the regulations, amendment 119 would strengthen personal autonomy and ensure that individuals have meaningful control of their care information. The amendment provides that citizens must have the right of access to and control of their care records, including the ability to determine who may access different types of information. That is essential for maintaining privacy and trust in the system.

I recognise what the minister said about control and some people potentially being excluded. If my amendment needs to be worked on to provide further useful definition, I am happy to do that. However, outwith the normal situations where people have data shared with doctors and so on, there are people who will not necessarily want their data to be shared, and it is essential that they have a choice on that.

Amendment 119 seeks to ensure that guardians may exercise the rights on behalf of those for whom they hold legal responsibility, which offers vulnerable individuals clarity and protection. Crucially, the amendment would also guarantee that care records will be accessible in various formats, ensuring that no one will be excluded due to digital barriers.

My amendments in the group would make it explicit that providers of care services should be included in the information-sharing framework. I take on board the minister’s point about the definition of care providers, but care providers need appropriate access to relevant records in order to deliver safe, effective and person-centred care. The amendments were worked on with third sector care providers, who do not always have access to all the records that they feel that they need. However, their access must be balanced with strong safeguards that give individuals control of their data by ensuring a clear rights-based approach to information governance. My amendments would support a more transparent, accessible and accountable system.

I want to come in briefly on the group as a whole and say that I support what Carol Mochan and Jackie Baillie have already said. However, I hope that, in summing up, Jackie Baillie will cover what the totality of the impact will be for local authorities. The Scottish Government is not always the one that is doing the procuring in the first place, and throughout the bill process, one of our concerns has been about autonomy for local authorities. I hope that Jackie Baillie might be able to address those considerations in her summing up.

Amendment 123, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 125, 134, 135, 138 to 141, 148, 155, 156, and 159.

Good morning, everyone. You made two recommendations relating to people with lived experience in the statutory services workforce: to increase their number and to ensure that there is equitable pay and fair conditions for them. How should that be done to ensure that it is not the tick-box exercise that you speak about in your report?

You mentioned stigma in your response to Jeremy Balfour. In the evidence that you took, did the people who you spoke to talk about specific mechanisms for meaningfully involving lived and living experience voices not only to tackle stigma but to do more of the service planning?

Good morning. The people’s panel made two recommendations under the theme of participation, rights and lived experience, which related to lived experience in the workforce. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that employing people with lived experience is not simply a tick-box exercise and that there is equitable pay, fair working conditions and good support for that group, in comparison with what is available for equivalent public sector workers?

The people’s panel recommended that the proposed human rights bill be introduced in this parliamentary session in order to support the implementation of the charter of rights for people affected by substance use. Why does the Scottish Government feel that the bill does not require to be introduced in this session in order to support the implementation of the charter, which was published in December last year? Crucially, outside of that, how will the Government ensure that the charter is implemented?

Professor Cardwell, I will come to you first on this question. Last week, we had feedback from NUS Scotland on the difficulties of timing with some application processes for Turing and for the Scottish education exchange programme, or SEEP. Are you receiving similar feedback from students who might be looking to access those schemes? From an academic’s point of view, what else would you like to be incorporated into those schemes to make the process as easy as possible for students, academics and those supporting the students, so that we get as many people as possible to do exchanges?

Is there anything else, from an academic’s point of view, that you would like to see in the current schemes to facilitate movement among early-career researchers and to enable academics to do teaching exchanges?

Section 22 of the bill precludes provisions that relate to reserved matters, which has raised concerns about Scottish ministers’ ability to designate an approved substance for assisted dying, because that designation is critical for the bill’s practical implementation. I appreciate that Mr McArthur said that not everything needs to be in the bill, but the practical implications are obviously of interest to the committee. What steps or negotiations are being considered with the UK Government to resolve that issue, and, if the issue could result in a delay, how could that be managed in the interim?