Chamber and committees

I think that Daren Fitzhenry might want to come in but, before he does so, I will pick up on the fact that things are happening right now. For example, Badger Notes for maternity services enables women who are pregnant to have real-time access to the information in their pregnancy care record. The clinical portal is another part of what is being developed to enable access to care records that the patients do not necessarily get to see but the clinicians do. There is work in progress, which can be built on. I am interested in how we can use that as a way to measure how we implement a future safe and secure data care system.

Page 3 of the policy memorandum says that the creation of a national social work agency is part of the plan, but that is not in the bill. It seems pretty significant to create a national social work agency—if that is what is proposed—so does that need to be in the bill?

I have just a quick thought. Yesterday in Dumfries, one of the people round the table said that we should move away from talking about person-centred care and talk about relationship-centred care, which is based on trust between, for example, a person and their carer at home or in a care home. What are your thoughts on the language that we use? Of course, we want a person-centred approach, because the situation is very dependent on what data is shared and who is allowed access to data, such as the combination for a key safe, as Ken Meechan was talking about. Can I have brief thoughts on person-centred versus relationship-centred care?

The primary legislation will state what we want to achieve and, from there, we will work back towards what the secondary legislation will need to include. Part of that is about co-design with people who matter and those who know how a co-design process can be taken forward. The co-design part relates to Ken Macdonald’s comments and the working back part relates to Beth Lawton’s comments.

It is for either Beth Lawton or Ken Macdonald.

We have talked a lot about personal data, but now we have a couple of questions on the monitoring and evaluation of the national care service.

I am interested in whether the bill as introduced has suitable information on the monitoring and evaluation of care as it is delivered. Should anything be added, or will the framework legislation allow the service to be monitored and evaluated in the way that we intend?

Good morning, everybody. Our papers contain information about the establishment of a new national social work agency. I would be interested to hear the panel’s thoughts on the proposed creation of a centralised quality improvement body in the form of a national social work agency. Do you welcome that, or would you prefer an alternative approach to be taken? If so, what would that be? Let us go to Suzanne McGuinness first.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his unequivocal statement that, under a Scottish National Party Government, the NHS in Scotland will always be a public service that is free at the point of need. Ensuring that the NHS has the right staff is vital. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, as well as investing in training and recruitment, we must seek to attract staff from overseas to make Scotland and the NHS their home? Does he share my disappointment that Sir Keir Starmer seems content to use anti-immigration rhetoric that is on a par with that of Nigel Farage?

As I said, I will not. I am going to continue.

However, the impact that Brexit has had on our fishing industry, including through us losing our position in the negotiations, must be made clear. Through the UK seafood fund, the UK Government is directly funding projects in a policy area that is devolved. Additional spending on businesses and initiatives in Scotland is always welcome, but this is not simply additional funding. First and foremost, it is UK Government spending in an area that is devolved to the Scottish Government and is of crucial importance to Scotland. It is imperative that the Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament in this area, and that it can make decisions about the use of marine and fisheries funding that are in line with Scotland’s priorities.

The UK Government is presenting the UK seafood fund as a solution to all the industry’s challenges, with more landings and more opportunities to support long-term economic development in the coastal communities. However, Brexit has had a devastating impact, and it has not delivered on the promises that were made in relation to uplift in all quota shares. Those promises were made, but they have not been delivered on.

If the appropriate share of the £100 million UK seafood fund had been allocated directly to the Scottish Government, it would have been able to support meaningful investments, informed by its detailed engagement with Scotland’s marine and seafood sectors, in support of our blue economy. Instead, we have the UK seafood fund operating in the same space as the marine fund Scotland scheme. The Scottish Government does not ask to administer devolved expenditure in England, so there is no reason why the UK Government should do that in Scotland.

We need to ensure that there is an opportunity to do better and that we can be at the table so that we are front and centre of negotiations in the future. That will bring about improvements and a better deal for our fishing communities.

We have heard some interesting contributions, including from members who have strong fishing connections in their areas, as I do—inshore fishing is especially important across the South Scotland region. There are important fishing communities in Eyemouth, Kirkcudbright and Stranraer, as well as in other locations across the south-west of my region.

Like Jim Fairlie, I acknowledge that Colin Smyth and Rachael Hamilton rightly highlighted the dangers that are faced by our fishermen when they go out to catch and supply food for us all. It is really important that those members mentioned that, and I thank them for doing so.

Rightly, the Scottish Government’s key priority throughout negotiations is always to protect Scottish interests by securing sustainable catching opportunities for our fishermen. As others have said, it is important to work within environmental limits to ensure that fish stocks are managed sustainably, while providing a resource for future generations and safeguarding the diversity of our marine ecosystems. That is part of responsible fisheries management.

It would be wrong not to recognise the significant pressures that the Scottish fishing industry currently faces, including recovery from the pandemic, the effects of Brexit and the impacts of the cost of living crisis. We have already heard that from others.

Fishing opportunities for the majority of key stocks for the Scottish fishing industry are negotiated annually through a variety of multiparty and bilateral forums. The UK’s exit from the EU has had a devastating impact on the seafood sector overall. The Brexit discussions concluded on 24 December 2020 with a trade and co-operation agreement that clearly did not deliver on the promises made by the UK Government, particularly those on the uplift in all quota shares.

Following its exit from the European Union, the UK has now become an independent coastal state, and it has conducted negotiations on that footing since 2021. The Scottish Government’s key priority throughout negotiations is always to protect Scottish interests by securing sustainable catching opportunities.

However, for the Scottish fishing industry, the Tories’ promise of a sea of opportunity has now been exposed as being completely hollow. This is not the first time that that has been mentioned this afternoon. Jim Fairlie was right when he said that the fishing industry has been clear in expressing its views.