���˿���

Quite right, and it is nice to get back out socialising now that we can.

The member raises a serious point. A balance needs to be struck. I am conscious of that, because I have asked for a lot of data from our healthcare colleagues during the pandemic and during my year as health secretary. I have asked for a lot of data and the Government has asked for a lot of data. Undoubtedly, that has placed a level of strain on people. We try to get the balance right in terms of how often reporting takes place and what data is being reported on and so on.

When we get into the matter in more detail, the key issue that I hear from healthcare professionals is that barriers still exist to sharing data across the health and social care landscape. That continues to be a significant problem. Last year, we published our digital health and care strategy. That lays the foundations of easing some of that in the future and removing some of those barriers.

We are alive and alert to your point about the need for us to ensure that we have the data that we need while not burdening our health services at a time of extreme charge.

I go back to what I think is a good record during our time in Government. Our record speaks volumes.

When it comes to recruitment and trying to look into the future—or even looking at the present vacancies—we have to create vacancies in order to expand the workforce. Again, I will be able to write to the committee with more detail about what percentage of recent vacancies have come on board recently. Actually, Gillian Russell has helpfully provided that: 77 per cent of the nursing and midwifery vacancies that were reported in December 2021 have been recorded in the past few months. That is reflective of the extent of the new posts that have been created.

Those new posts are part of the workforce expansion, but they do not account for all vacancies by any stretch of the imagination. Those remaining vacancies give me a level of concern. However, to go back to my previous point, this Government and successive health secretaries have a good record of increasing and expanding our staffing.

However, it is not just about expansion; it is also about retention. The nurture pillar of our workforce strategy is key to that. In the reform space, it is also about what we ask those who work in the health service to do. There is a question about infinitely growing our workforce in the future. I do not think that anybody would suggest that that will be possible. However, we can ensure that what we ask our workforce to do meets the needs of the public and patients.

We have a good track record. There is no doubt that there have been challenges to workforce planning in the past but, with our current strategy in place, I hope that we will be able to mitigate some of them.

It has been really successful. Taking my cue from the convener’s comment about being succinct, there is little for me to add, given that Emma Harper has rightly mentioned some of the data on the programme. We can build upon initiatives such as ScotGEM, the rediscover the joy project, golden hellos and the work that we are doing on the back of Sir Lewis Ritchie’s report into a centre for remote and rural healthcare. All those initiatives are important for recruitment and retention, particularly in our remote, rural and island settings.

Stephanie Callaghan is absolutely right to make the point that progress on life expectancy has stalled. Improving mental and physical health—which are obviously often linked—and improving access to opportunities to improve one’s own physical and mental health will be critical. That is why our recovery plan is so important. To be frank, because people have not been able to access services in the way that they would have pre-pandemic over the past two years, people are undoubtedly attending our hospitals with higher acuity. They are deteriorating in their own conditions if they have been on waiting lists for too long, and if a person does not get a CAMHS referral in good time, their mental health is of course in danger of deteriorating.

Again, the preventative space is therefore integral to our recovery. However, the challenges are significant. That is why the care and wellbeing portfolio is also hugely important. I am happy to give the committee continued updates on how we are evaluating that. Different pieces of that work will be evaluated in different ways. For example, we have promised to update on the recovery plan yearly, but there is a different evaluation process for funding streams. Maybe I can set some of that out to the committee in further detail.

I hope that most members recognise the incredible work that Public Health Scotland has done over the course of the pandemic. That includes the amount of data that it has provided and its incredible work across the range of services that it provided in response to the pandemic. We did not know that we would be hit by a pandemic, which has meant that some of the work that we wanted Public Health Scotland to do when the organisation was conceived has stalled. There is no getting away from that.

However, I am pleased that my recent conversations with Public Health Scotland have shown that it has been able to pivot slightly away from the pandemic response, although it has not been able to pivot entirely away from that, because the pandemic is still with us. Given that we are moving into an endemic phase, Public Health Scotland is able to do more work on the issues that Ms Mochan has raised, and I give an absolute assurance that those issues are a clear focus for the management and chair of Public Health Scotland.

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.