Chamber and committees

We heard some of those points last week from the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and others. Do you think that there is a problem of perception, in that people think that, if there is a body that is, in lay people’s views, completely separate, that constitutes independent regulation, rather than the Lord President being an independent regulator as it stands currently?

I am grateful to your lordships.

The Government will lodge amendments, we think. In a sense, that is the known unknown. We have had that discussion with other witnesses.

Can the bill be amended? You said that a compromise will not satisfy everyone. Are there amendments that could be made that would move the bill to a place where we could get more consensus? There was a view that perhaps the Lord President did not feel as consulted in your review as he could have been. I am keen to get your view on that. Could the legal profession have contributed more to your review and got us to a position of consensus?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to Ms Roberton. I am particularly interested in the regulatory role for the Lord President that might have been envisaged by your review. If there was an independent regulator, what role would the Lord President play? In evidence over the preceding weeks and this morning, we have heard the view that the Lord President is an independent regulator. Will you expand on that for the committee?

At the beginning of your remarks, you spoke about the bill’s being imperfect, to put it kindly. In your view, could there have been a different version of legislation that would have created something that was independent but that had a role for the Lord President, which could have been developed in concert between the parties, essentially?

Is it your view that, given the current bill, compromise will be impossible—or really difficult to achieve?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this annual debate as we mark world AIDS day 2023. I congratulate Clare Haughey on her speech and on securing the debate. It is important that the Parliament continues to shine a light on HIV in Scotland and on-going efforts to reduce and eliminate transmission.

World AIDS day each year presents us with an opportunity to do a number of different things. It gives us the opportunity to recall and remember those who have lost their lives over many decades—as we have heard from colleagues—and also to renew our support and the fight for the living, particularly for those who are managing their condition, as well as those who are living in a situation in which they can take action to prevent transmission. It also gives us the opportunity to move forward in our ambition to reach zero transmissions by 2030.

Tonight, we stand with those in Scotland and around the world who are living with HIV. As we have heard from colleagues, we know that an HIV diagnosis still carries with it far too much stigma, along with fear and uncertainty. In that context, it is imperative that the Parliament and public figures continue to call out stigma and offer support to people who have received a diagnosis.

Estimates from Public Health Scotland show that, as of the end of the last calendar year, around 6,600 people in Scotland were living with HIV. The statistics around diagnosis and treatment are encouraging: 93 per cent of people living with HIV have been diagnosed, and 93 per cent of people receiving antiretroviral treatment had an undetectable viral load. There are positive developments, as we hear year on year when we gather in the chamber to debate these issues.

Every year, there is a theme for world AIDS day. This year, the theme that we are focusing on is “let communities lead”. That is particularly important in the context of the excellent work that is being done in communities across Scotland in partnership with third sector organisations and charities in order to drive forward our ambition for 2030. I highlight the work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, which we have heard about already this evening. In particular, I will say something about Waverley Care and the work that it has done in continuing to focus on the journey towards zero new transmissions in 2030.

In the past year, I have been pleased to host a number of events focusing on that work. I held a round-table event in Parliament—which some colleagues in the chamber attended—where we heard about some of the lived experience to which Karen Adam referred in her speech, and about the stigma and the challenges that still exist for so many people in Scotland who are living with HIV.

During the summer, I was pleased to host the launch of the #GetToZero campaign by Waverley Care at an evening reception in the Parliament, which was very well attended. Once again, we were able to hear about the ambitious target for 2030, and we heard clearly from Waverley Care and others that the Government must continue to keep pace, do more and continue to take action to drive us towards that deadline. None of us wants to be standing in the chamber in 2030—if, of course, we are successful in still being here—talking about a missed target. We want to be talking about the target that we have achieved, and how we have moved Scotland to a position where there are no new transmissions.

In reflecting on the theme of communities coming together, we still have more to do to tackle stigma and to ensure that we support people who are living with HIV. The Government has more to do, with the support of all members in Parliament, to achieve the 2030 target. I look forward to hearing the minister’s update in that regard, and I am very grateful to have the time to share my views this evening.

What is current interaction with IIAC like when trade unions make requests for research or want to look into certain conditions? The word “pushback” might be too strong, but is there a lack of interaction in looking at issues and trying to move forward on them? Norman, you are nodding.

I will continue in the vein of looking at what value might be added by having a Scottish compensation body. I know that NASUWT commented on how long IIAC can take to make recommendations and we heard more about that in response to my first question. How could SEIAC work faster to make decisions that will make an impact? Mike Corbett may want to come in, because it was NASUWT that commented on the time taken at the moment.

That is an interesting point, because concerns have been flagged about how duplication might occur. Do members of the panel have any views on how they might foresee the two organisations interacting and collaborating? Pre-emption is possibly a good example, but I guess that that would need some form of engagement between IIAC and SEIAC. Does anyone also foresee a way of avoiding duplication when it comes to how we set those things up?