Chamber and committees

Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Portfolio Question Time
Business Motion
Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill: Stage 3
Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill: Stage 3
Business Motions
Parliamentary Bureau Motion
Motion without Notice
Decision Time
Rural Visa Pilot Scheme

Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill: Stage 3

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Liam McArthur)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 19A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds; thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button, or enter “RTS” in the chat function if they are joining us online, as soon as possible after the group is called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Jackie Dunbar (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am finding it very difficult to hear you from up here. I do not know whether there is anything that can be done.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Well, I could probably speak louder, Ms Dunbar. Thank you very much indeed. That is what I will endeavour to do.

Section 2—Functions

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on major incidents. Amendment 9, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 10, 17, 18, 20 and 21.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I will speak to amendment 9 and all other amendments in the group. The six amendments are all related and, taken together, they will strengthen the rights of bereaved families in the bill. The amendments seek to ensure that patients who have been seriously injured or harmed in a healthcare setting are never again left struggling to get answers and justice.

This suite of amendments and the ones that follow in group 3 are the basis for putting Milly’s law into effect. Taken together, the amendments will deliver a duty to advocate for those affected by a major incident in a healthcare setting; a patient safety charter for the benefit of patients and their families—which we will come on to—a duty to ensure that patients who are affected by a major incident are aware of the commissioner’s role; a duty to provide affected patients with information and details that will support them; and a duty to provide information to whistleblowers on how to disclose information relating to a major incident.

I remind members why this is so important. Milly Main was 10 years old and in remission from leukaemia when she tragically lost her life to an infection that was believed to have been caused by the water supply in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Her mum, Kimberly, has had to battle to get answers, compounding her pain at what was an unimaginably difficult time. She is not the only family member who has had to fight alone for answers in a situation like that. Louise Slorance, a grieving widow who lost her husband in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital infection scandal and whom Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board chose to pay a private company to spy on, is still waiting for a meeting with the health board that was promised by the former First Minister. Both Louise and Kimberly are still awaiting the outcome of the Queen Elizabeth public inquiry. For those of us with even longer memories, I also want to mention the C diff scandal that happened at the Vale of Leven hospital. Those are illustrations of where having a patient safety commissioner with robust powers would have been so important.

Let me address the amendments in turn. Amendment 9 would add to the duties of the patient safety commissioner for Scotland, meaning that they would be required

“to advocate for those affected by a major incident”,

while amendment 20 defines the term “major incident”.

Amendment 17 would introduce a new section to the bill relating to the commissioner’s role once they are made aware of a major incident. That would include making patients affected by major incidents and the families of patients who died as a result of them aware of the commissioner’s role and providing relevant information including sources of support, information on accessing legal advice and representation; details of any investigations or inquiries relating to the incident; and, of course, advice to whistleblowers. Significantly, amendment 17 would also require the commissioner to consider initiating a formal investigation into an incident within one year of becoming aware of it.

My amendments do not seek to hinder the work of the commissioner and, indeed, amendment 17 requires the commissioner to consider initiating a formal investigation but does not require them to carry out that investigation. We are trying to be proportionate.

Amendment 21 defines the term “family member” for the purposes of identifying who should be contacted by the commissioner in the event of a major incident.

Under amendment 18, when the commissioner completed a formal investigation, they would be required to provide a copy of their report into the incident to the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That amendment also confirms that the report could be used in legal proceedings.

Under the bill as it stands, the patient safety commissioner does not have the power to make redress or assist those seeking redress, nor do they have power to opine on actions that should be taken in relation to individuals. However, amendment 10 would ensure that major incidents are exempt from that element of the bill.

My amendments would empower the patient safety commissioner to advocate for people who have been failed by the healthcare system. They would ensure that those who are affected by such incidents are supported in knowing their rights and in getting the appropriate help. By empowering the role of the commissioner, we can begin to reset the balance between families and powerful public bodies.

I move amendment 9.

Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con)

I rise to support Jackie Baillie’s amendments in group 1. The Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal has haunted families for years—families who are desperately seeking answers from a health board that has pulled down the shutters and said, “Nothing to see here.” We saw the same thing happen in NHS Tayside in the Sam Eljamel case. His medical negligence has had devastating consequences for his patients. Patients and their families should not have to go up against a large public body in order to find out the truth. That is in no way a fair fight.

In 2019, the Scottish Government announced the Scottish hospitals inquiry to look into the QEUH campus and, earlier this month, it announced that there would be a public inquiry into Dr Eljamel. Those inquiries are welcome, but they can take years and leave families in limbo. Against that background, it makes sense for the patient safety commissioner to advocate for those who have been affected by a major incident in a healthcare setting, where they believe that it is appropriate to do so. Jackie Baillie’s amendments are, however, a significant expansion of the patient safety commissioner’s remit, with implications for resourcing. If the amendments are successful—and I hope that they will be, after the Scottish National Party and Greens rejected them at stage 2—the commissioner will need to be able to deliver on them. I hope that the minister and Jackie Baillie will be able to address that point.

The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health (Jenni Minto)

I begin by acknowledging the voices of patients who have been harmed while in the care of the NHS or any other healthcare provider, as well as those of their families and loved ones. I can only begin to imagine the grief of those families who have been bereaved, and my heart goes out to them for the devastating loss that they have suffered. Families have spoken clearly and powerfully about how the healthcare system has let them down. In Jackie Baillie’s words, they have had to battle. The best thing that any of us can do now—in fact, the only thing that we can do—is to take every step that is possible to make sure that other families do not suffer the same thing in the future. I record my thanks to Jackie Baillie for her continued support and advocacy for those patients and their families and for working with us towards our common aim of making the bill and the patient safety commissioner as strong as possible.

In these discussions, none of us will ever forget that we all want to make healthcare safer. That has been at the forefront of my mind since I started working on the bill and I know that the same is true for all members in the chamber.

As I noted at stage 2, the patient safety commissioner’s role is to amplify the voice of patients and to drive improvements in safety, however they see fit. The commissioner will have powers to investigate any healthcare safety issue, and listening to patients and their families is a fundamental element of their role. I know from my discussions with her that Jackie Baillie’s amendments seek to strengthen the commissioner even further, to ensure that the voices of those harmed in major healthcare incidents and families who have lost loved ones are heard.

15:00

The patient safety commissioner will undoubtedly wish to hear the voices of bereaved families as well as affected patients when they wish to raise an issue relating to patient safety that stems from the sort of incident that Jackie Baillie has described. That is already provided for in the bill. Indeed, as a Government, our key consideration when developing the bill has been to give the patient safety commissioner as much independence as possible, so that they have the most freedom possible to examine any healthcare issue that affects patients and their families.

The most important thing that we can do now is to do our best to ensure that no families see loved ones harmed while in the care of the healthcare system. That is why it is so important that the bill improves patient safety by encouraging openness, learning and co-operation within the healthcare system, so that, when things go wrong, lessons are learned and families do not go through the same things again.

Although I understand the intent behind amendment 10, it is likely to detract from the vital function that I have just described, which is to encourage openness, to ensure that lessons are learned and to prevent the same harms from happening again. Adding to the commissioner’s role a function of providing or assisting with redress for patients and bereaved families, and giving their opinions on the actions that others should take in light of past incidents, risks putting the commissioner into an adversarial role and may encourage healthcare providers to believe that they have to be defensive, as opposed to open, in their dealings with the commissioner.

Focusing the commissioner on openness and learning rather than on redress for past incidents will be the best way of ensuring that, when they look into any healthcare safety issues that are connected to a major incident in which many patients are harmed, lessons are learned and those harms are not repeated.

Similarly, amendment 21 provides an extensive list of definitions of what constitutes family, which I know Jackie Baillie has drafted with the sole intention of ensuring that no family member is excluded from being able to speak to the commissioner or to receive support. However, family means different things to different people, and the family connections that are important to one person will not necessarily be the same as to the next. In addition, some of the language in the amendment on whole-blood and half-blood relationships is outdated. It is more effective not to tie the commissioner up with lengthy definitions of who they should or should not consider in the context of their work. That is a matter for the commissioner’s discretion.

We all share the desire for the patient safety commissioner to be able to look into healthcare safety issues arising from major incidents in which multiple patients are harmed. I have considered carefully how best to achieve that. My view remains that it is more effective to allow the commissioner to be guided by patients on the issues that they look into and the actions that they take. I do not wish to inadvertently tie the commissioner’s hands with regard to the circumstances that they can look into, and I worry that this group of amendments, by adding very specific steps for the commissioner to take in relation to a certain group of incidents, would unintentionally undermine the commissioner’s vital ability to set their own agenda and to look into the issues of most concern to patients.

It remains the case that, following a major incident relating to healthcare safety, the commissioner would have an important role in hearing from those who are affected and considering whether a systemic problem has caused it. I must emphasise again, as this point is very important, that there is nothing in the powers and functions that are already in the bill preventing the commissioner from doing that. I therefore urge members not to support the amendments.

Jackie Baillie

Well, there you go, Presiding Officer. I listened very carefully to the minister’s response, and there is much on which we agree, but the warm words are not a substitute for action. It is one thing to acknowledge the voices of families, but it is another not to listen to them when they describe the action that is required to give the commissioner the powers that the families say are necessary. Therefore, I am genuinely disappointed. I thank Tess White and the Conservatives for their support. I point out to the minister that the First Minister said that he supported Milly’s law, but his Government does not appear to do so. How can he have changed his mind so quickly? Or is he not actually in control of the legislation?

I spent a considerable amount of time engaging with the minister and her officials—time that I thought was well spent but, unfortunately, that does not appear to have been the case. I have listened to her very carefully and I will withdraw amendment 21, because the minister has confirmed on the record that the widest definition of family will be considered, and I am content with that.

However, if the minister thinks that the provision in amendment 9 will make healthcare providers more defensive than they already are, I am astonished. We need only to look at the evidence and the attitude of healthcare providers and managers at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and at NHS Tayside in relation to Eljamel to understand that healthcare providers are already defensive, and we need to change the balance. We need to get things back to the patient being at the centre of everything that we do. The Parliament should give effect to Milly’s law and, in closing, I will reflect on the words of Milly’s mum, Kimberly Darroch:

“Right now, the system is stacked against those who have questions about what happened to their loved ones—that can’t be right. We are looking to our parliament to put measures in place so that nobody has to go through what we went through ever again.”

I hope that members will reflect on her words and reject the minister’s approach and support the amendments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage 3 proceedings, I will suspend Parliament for around five minutes, to allow members to get on to the digital voting platform.

15:07 Meeting suspended.

15:12 On resuming—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will proceed with the division on amendment 9. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

15:15

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

The result of the division is—

Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have had issues. There are all sorts of problems with my app. It is now telling me that the vote is closed, but it did not let me vote. I would have voted no.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Kidd, we can record that, but I encourage members who have an issue to let us know as soon as possible.

Bill Kidd

I am sorry. I did not know when to speak up.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Section 3—Principles

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on principles. Amendment 11, in the name of Tess White, is the only amendment in the group.

Tess White

Amendment 11 requires that the “statement of principles” must consider ways of engaging with NHS staff to seek

“their views on patient safety concerns”.

A similar amendment that, as the minister will remember, I lodged at stage 2 sought to place a duty on the commissioner to “seek the views” of NHS staff in relation to patient safety. In her response at the time, the minister raised concerns that the commissioner is

“already empowered to do so”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 13 June 2023; c 16.]

and that such an approach could detract from “patients’ voices”. As such, I have softened the approach of the amendment at stage 3 to focus it on how the commissioner can engage with NHS staff, instead of creating a requirement for them to do so.

I am revisiting the amendment, because, in the period between stages 2 and 3, the trial of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby reached its horrifying conclusion. That deeply distressing case has shocked the public and has shaken the foundations of the healthcare system. Lessons can and must be learned by healthcare providers, especially given that other NHS staff raised the alarm but were overruled by their managers. I know that recourse exists for NHS staff to raise red flags about safety, but, as the Royal College of Nursing has argued, staff do not always feel that their concerns are heard or addressed, as in Lucy Letby’s case.

The minister suggested that the commissioner’s hearing from NHS staff could cut across patients’ voices, but I would counter that, in many cases, such processes could be concurrent and complementary. It would, of course, be at the commissioner’s discretion how to amplify the voice of patients while engaging with NHS staff, but the amendment is designed to facilitate that process.

I move amendment 11.

Jenni Minto

As I laid out during my discussion with Tess White at stage 2, and further when we met in September, I do not support her amendment. I agree that, as part of investigating and monitoring potential patient safety issues, the commissioner will wish to hear from staff, but there is nothing in the bill that precludes the commissioner from doing so.

Placing a requirement on the commissioner by way of a principle that the commissioner seeks the views of staff risks cutting across the focus on hearing and amplifying the patient voice. Separate channels and procedures are already in place through which NHS staff can raise concerns about patient safety, including whistleblowing, and I wish to avoid the commissioner cutting across them, too.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Tess White to wind up the debate and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 11.

Tess White

I will press the amendment. I am deeply disappointed that the minister has not considered the case of Lucy Letby or the recommendations by the RCN.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Bill Kidd

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—this time as last time. The app is not working, and I would have voted no.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Kidd. I will make sure that that vote is recorded.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

After section 7

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on the charter. Amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 3A and 4.

Jackie Baillie

I will speak to and move amendments 3, 3A and 4, which are all in my name. I will first cover amendments 3A and 3. Amendment 3 sets out in the bill a requirement for the commissioner to produce a charter for the benefit of patients and their representatives, and to ensure that there is consultation on the charter, including with patients, and that it takes their views into account. I am grateful to Ms Minto and the Government for carefully considering the issues that I raised at stages 1 and 2, and for working with me to ensure that provision for a charter is included in the bill.

Amendment 3 will place on the commissioner a duty to produce a charter that would set out what the commissioner considers to be best practice and appropriate standards that are expected of all healthcare providers, particularly in relation to the importance of engaging with patients and families. The commissioner would be required to take the expectations that are set out in the charter into account when considering a healthcare provider’s handling of any incident.

Critically, the charter will send an important signal to patients and families and to healthcare providers that the requirement to act is on NHS boards and other healthcare providers, and not on patients and families. Those who have been harmed or bereaved should not have to push for answers from healthcare providers, and nor is it acceptable that, in times of pain or grief, patients, families and loved ones should have to struggle to have their experiences acknowledged and their voices heard. That is why it is so important that the amendment makes particular reference to engagement with patients and families.

Engagement means more than simply passing on information, important though that is. It is vital to me—as, I know, it is to all of us in the Parliament—that providers of healthcare listen to and engage meaningfully with families and their representatives about their experiences; that they engage in two-way dialogue with patients and families rather than simply deliver information; and that they use the insights gained from that engagement to strengthen patient safety and continuously improve their services, so that mistakes are not repeated and harm is prevented.

I turn to amendment 3A, which is in addition to amendment 3. Amendment 3A was not agreed with the minister, but, on reflection, I thought that it would be sensible to add it, because it is important that the commissioner has available to them powers of accountability to ensure that private companies that supply medicines and medical devices are captured in the category of person required to provide information in an investigation.

Amendment 3A would allow the commissioner to

“prepare and publish a report on the compliance of a health care provider with the”

patient safety

“charter insofar as such compliance impacts on the safety of health care.”

The amendment is a further attempt to ensure that transparency and accountability are hardwired into the bill. It does not seek to instruct or bind the commissioner, but it would provide them with the option to produce a report if they felt that that was necessary. I therefore urge members to support amendment 3A.

Let me touch briefly on amendment 4. The reasons for the amendment have already been set out, so I urge members to vote for amendments 3, 3A and 4, which will ensure that the commissioner consults on the charter with patients, members of the advisory group and others in the same way as they consult on the principles and the strategic plan.

I move amendment 3.

Amendment 3A moved—[Jackie Baillie].

Jenni Minto

I thank Jackie Baillie for lodging amendments 3 and 4. She is deeply committed to patient safety and has campaigned on the issue for many years. I am grateful for her continued work within and outwith the Parliament to ensure that those who have suffered harm and their loved ones remain at the heart of the bill.

I am delighted that Jackie Baillie and I have been able to work together to find common ground and bring those important amendments to stage 3. Together, amendments 3 and 4 will place on the commissioner a duty to produce a charter that will set out what the commissioner considers to be best practice and appropriate standards expected of all healthcare providers. The commissioner will be required to take into account the expectations that are set out in the charter when considering a healthcare provider’s handling of an incident. The charter will send a powerful signal to healthcare providers that the requirement to act is on them, and not on patients and families. I share Jackie Baillie’s determination that those who have been harmed or bereaved should not have to push for answers from healthcare providers.

Amendments 3 and 4 will underscore the need for meaningful engagement with patients and families. That means much more than just the passing on of information, although that in itself is important. The commissioner will be able to use the charter to set out what is expected of healthcare providers when they engage with patients and families. That emphasises the importance of healthcare providers listening carefully to what patients and families say and of using the insights that are gained from that dialogue to strengthen patient safety and continuously improve their services.

Jackie Baillie has spoken powerfully, and we have heard her. I know that we share the same goal, and I am very grateful that we have been able to work together to get here. I urge members to support amendments 3 and 4.

However, I cannot support amendment 3A, because, after careful consideration, I believe that Jackie Baillie’s amendment 3, which I fully support, will be more effective without further amendment. Amendment 3 already provides that the commissioner is required to look at a healthcare provider’s actions against the expectations that are set out in the charter when considering how the provider has handled an incident, and it does so in stronger terms, setting out that the commissioner

“must take the expectations set out in the charter into account when considering a health care provider’s handling of an incident.”

We can expect that the commissioner will consider the extent to which healthcare providers have met the expectations of standards and good practice, and they can cover that in their reports on an investigation.

Amendment 3A is weaker by comparison, stating only that the commissioner

“may prepare and publish a report on the compliance of a health care provider with the charter insofar as such compliance impacts on the safety of health care.”

15:30

The second reason why I cannot support amendment 3A is more closely connected with our shared aim of ensuring that healthcare providers engage meaningfully with patients and their representatives. The amendment states that reports could cover compliance with the charter only

“insofar as such compliance impacts on the safety of health care.”

Arguably, that would include scrutiny of the quality of a healthcare provider’s engagement with patients and families in the report. That is because engagement is a step removed from the actual provision of healthcare where safety issues might arise. That is covered by amendment 3, and Jackie Baillie and I both recognise it as an important element of the commissioner’s role. I do not see the merit of a further amendment that cannot be relied on to allow the commissioner to report on issues of poor communication and inadequate engagement. Therefore, I urge members not to support amendment 3A on the basis that its broad aims are achieved more effectively in Jackie Baillie’s amendment 3.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 3A.

Jackie Baillie

I look forward to being spoken about again in such terms as the minister has used—very warm they were, indeed. I welcome the engagement. You would think that, if she thought so highly of me, she would think highly of my amendments, too, but I live for that possibility another day.

I join the minister in warmly welcoming the support for amendments 3 and 4, but I cannot help but say that, without the previous amendments, the provision is a watered-down version of Milly’s law. Although it is absolutely a move in the right direction, it will not, on its own, reset the balance between patients, their families and health administrators. I have seen health administrators—not all but many—who are already defensive and already in denial. I have seen health board administrators who dissemble rather than admit fault to patients. Simply passing the bill will not resolve that overnight.

On amendment 3A, many of us in the chamber—I am looking at Jackson Carlaw, in particular—witnessed the transvaginal mesh scandal and campaigned for women who were caught up in that. Very few of us will forget some of the stories that we were told.

The Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill has its origins in the fact that a United Kingdom Government decided that patients’ voices need to be better heard, and it cited cases of women who have transvaginal mesh. The makers of that transvaginal mesh have not really been held to account, so the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that they are included in any consideration. Although I hear what the minister said, amendment 3A would put the ability to hold them to account beyond doubt—it would not be optional but baked into the bill.

Therefore, although I welcome the SNP’s support for amendments 3 and 4, I regret that that does not go far enough in terms of the overall package, and I hope that members across the chamber will pause to reflect on our experience of the women who have suffered as a result of mesh complications and pass amendment 3A.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Baillie. The question is, that amendment 3A, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3A disagreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie to say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 3.

Jackie Baillie

I press amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Section 7A—Duty to consult on principles and strategic plan

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on the duty to consult. Amendment 12, in the name of Tess White, is grouped with amendment 13.

Tess White

Amendment 12 would create a duty for the commissioner to consult the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, or whichever parliamentary committee is concerned with patient safety, on the principles and on the strategic plan.

Amendment 12 is another amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and have brought back at stage 3. I thank the minister for the opportunity to discuss it with her earlier this month. At the time, the minister shared with me her concerns that amendment 12 would compromise the independence of the commissioner by specifying that they must consult parliamentary committees. She added that the role is first and foremost for patients and their representatives, as she said earlier in the debate.

The commissioner must have the freedom to define their own principles. However, I do not believe that the independence of the commissioner should preclude their consulting parliamentary committees, especially when committees can—and do—act as a bridge between the public and policy makers. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is uniquely placed to understand the healthcare system in Scotland and so can support the work of the commissioner.

More widely, members of the Scottish Parliament regularly advocate at health boards on behalf of patients, and provide assistance in complex cases in which a patient’s safety might have been jeopardised. The cases of patients who have experienced use of surgical mesh are cases in point.

The Scottish Conservatives will support Paul Sweeney’s amendment 13, which he has brought forward from stage 2. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report called for the principles to include

“an explicit commitment to listening to and supporting under-represented voices”,

especially in the context of women having been badly let down by the healthcare system. The Cumberlege report made for difficult and distressing reading in that regard.

I move amendment 12.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Paul Sweeney to speak to amendment 13 and the other amendment in the group.

Paul Sweeney (Glasgow) (Lab)

Amendment 13 is in my name. I thank Ms White for indicating that her party will support it.

At stage 2, I was keen to ensure that the work of the commissioner took into account the voices and concerns of groups of people who have perhaps not always been listened to by the healthcare establishment in the way that they should have been.

As I highlighted at stage 2, the evidence that the committee heard at stage 1 about the valproate and mesh patient safety issues that disproportionately affected women was particularly striking. Dr Arun Chopra of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland gave evidence suggesting that despite marginalised groups being predominantly affected by patient safety events, people from groups or communities including ethnic minorities are not well represented in patient safety data.

I am grateful to the minister for offering to work with me on amendment 13 to address those concerns at stage 3. The amendment reflects that collaborative work and would, in order to redress that clear imbalance, require the commissioner to give

“particular consideration to groups whose needs are, in the Commissioner’s opinion, under-represented or given insufficient weight in discourses around health care”

when consulting on formulation of the principles that are to inform how the commissioner carries out their functions, and the strategic plan that sets the course and focus of the commissioner’s work.

Jenni Minto

As Tess White mentioned, she and I discussed the intention behind amendment 12 when we met on 4 September. I explained then that I do not believe that it adds value to the role of the commissioner. The commissioner’s role is, first and foremost, for patients and their representatives.

The current wording of the bill already provides for the commissioner to consult and engage widely on the draft statement of principles and the strategic plan. In doing so, the commissioner is to have

“regard to the importance of”

those documents

“reflecting patients’ concerns”.

If it is considered “appropriate”, consultees “may” include committees of the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, I recognise that health committee members have a deep understanding of the healthcare system and that, as representatives of their constituents, they might hear of experiences relating to safety from patients and families, both of which could be helpful to the commissioner’s work. However, the commissioner's consultation powers are already set out and are broad enough to enable consultation of those whom the commissioner deems to be “appropriate”.

It is also worth noting that a duty to consult a relevant committee is not placed on other commissioners in Scotland. I remain strongly committed to the independence of the commissioner: that they should be independent was the clear message during the consultation on the bill, and I do not want to compromise that independence by specifying that the commissioner must, in the course of their work, consult specific parliamentary committees. For those reasons I do not support amendment 12.

However, I support Paul Sweeney’s amendment 13, which is on ensuring that underrepresented groups are heard. A similar amendment was lodged at stage 2, which I supported in principle, so I am pleased to have been able to work with Paul Sweeney since then on the wording of the amendment. I am content that it will now have the intended effect, on which we all agree, of ensuring that the commissioner gives particular consideration to groups whose perspectives are often less heard or not given sufficient weight in discourse on healthcare.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Tess White to wind up and to say whether she wishes to press or seek to withdraw amendment 12.

Tess White

I will press amendment 12. I am deeply disappointed that the minister has not heard what I have said. The parliamentary committees have huge resources at their disposal for research and holding inquiries. I think that the minister’s decision is a big mistake, and I hope that, if the amendment is rejected, the commissioner, when he or she is in post, will use that facility to his or her advantage for patient safety. I press amendment 12.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Paul Sweeney]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

After section 11

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 5 is entitled “Special report”. Amendment 14, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is the only amendment in the group.

Paul Sweeney

Amendment 14 would give the commissioner the power to create a special report in the event that it appears that recommendations that were made in the initial formal investigation report

“have not been, or will not be, implemented”.

A special report would be sent to the persons or organisations to which the formal investigation report was sent in the first instance, and a copy would be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, the report could be made public, if the commissioner considered that to be appropriate.

15:45

Bodies cannot be left to mark their own homework on patient safety. There must be an option to escalate matters if recommendations are dismissed or ignored. That seems to be obvious to me and to other members in the chamber. All that we need to do is listen to people with experience. Marie Lyon, from the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that

“Up to now ... people have tended to get away with it. There has never been accountability and there have never been consequences.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 7 February 2023; c 22.]

At stage 2, the minister suggested that the amendment that was lodged then was superfluous, because the bill as drafted allows for the commissioner to publish information on implementation. However, I argue that publication of information and production of a special report are two different things.

Amendment 14 is not a radical amendment. It seeks to bring the powers of the patient safety commissioner broadly into line with those of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who, under section 16 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, can lay a special report before Parliament if, following the making of a formal report,

“it appears to the Ombudsman that the injustice or hardship has not been, or will not be, remedied”.

At stage 2, the minister also cited her concern that the commissioner could be at risk of defamation claims, should a special report be created about recommendations that they believed would not be implemented. However, the language of amendment 14 is in line with that of the 2002 act.

Furthermore, I note that section 18 of the bill includes a number of protections from defamation actions. It states that

“any statement in the Commissioner’s report on an investigation has absolute privilege,”

and that

“any other statement made by the Commissioner has qualified privilege.”

In committee evidence, patient safety groups were absolutely clear that there must be accountability and the option to escalate. In moving amendment 14, I urge all members, including the minister, to support it, please, in order to give the commissioner the necessary teeth and capacity to ensure that recommendations are implemented.

I move amendment 14.

Jenni Minto

I do not support amendment 14, which would allow the commissioner to make a special report on any recommendations from a previous report that they felt

“have not been, or will not be, implemented”.

As I said at stage 2, the bill expressly gives the commissioner power to publish information on a person’s response to recommendations that the commissioner has made in an investigation report or, indeed, on any failure to respond. Amendment 14 is therefore unnecessary.

At stage 2, I noted my concern that requiring the commissioner to lay before Parliament a report about actions that

“it appears to the Commissioner ... will not be ... implemented”

could leave them open to defamation actions, because it anticipates or speculates about wrongdoing by others. Therefore, I ask members not to vote for amendment 14.

Paul Sweeney

It is very disappointing that the minister, having listened to the points that I made to clarify the purpose of amendment 14, is not minded to accept it.

It is clear that allowing only the commissioner to publish information on implementation is insufficient. That has been broadly recognised. I hear the point that the minister has sought to make. I have considered her position, but I do not think that what is currently in the bill is sufficient, and other stakeholders and groups who have communicated with us during the bill’s progress through Parliament agree. That is why I have brought my amendment back at stage 3.

I press amendment 14.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Section 12—Power to require information

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on information gathering and use. Amendment 15, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 5, 6 and 8.

Paul Sweeney

Amendment 15 seeks a solution to the lack of clarity in section 12 around whether the powers of the commissioner to compel persons or healthcare providers to provide information will also apply to private companies. At stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment, which the minister was not able to support because of concerns about the broader regulation of medicines and medical devices being a reserved matter, despite agreeing with me that manufacturers and suppliers of such items should be included. With the minister’s concerns in mind, I lodged a revised amendment, which would allow the Scottish ministers to add people to or modify the description of people on the list of those from whom the commissioner can require information under section 12.

Further, the proposed section 12(3C) in amendment 15 expressly draws attention to providers of medicine or medical devices in the text. That would allow the Scottish Government time to consider how best, within devolved competence, to include manufacturers and suppliers in the remit of the commissioner’s information compelling powers.

Labour members will support Ms Mochan’s amendment 6, which seeks to add the professional regulator and the Health and Safety Executive to the list of bodies that the commissioner can compel to share information. I can also confirm that Labour will support the technical changes that are set out in amendments 5 and 8, in the minister’s name.

I hope that the revisions made to amendment 15 provide the minister with ample assurance about devolved competence, and I would welcome the support of the Government and members across the chamber for the amendment.

I move amendment 15.

Jenni Minto

Amendments 5 and 8, in my name, relate to wording that was inserted into the bill at stage 2 by Carol Mochan. Following stage 2, the provision in section 12A sits among provisions about investigations by the commissioner. The provision relates instead to amending the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 to require health boards and the Common Services Agency—or, as it is more widely known, NHS National Services Scotland—to provide information to the patient safety commissioner as well as to the Scottish ministers, about the steps that they have taken to comply with the guiding principles for health and care staffing.

Amendment 5 removes the provision in section 12A from the bill, and amendment 8 inserts it into schedule 2, which deals with similar modifications to other legislation. The substantive effect of the wording inserted by Carol Mochan’s amendment at stage 2 is unchanged by that. Amendments 5 and 8 simply move the provision to a more appropriate part of the bill, for the benefit of those using the legislation. I have advised Carol Mochan of those changes, and I thank her for her contribution to the bill. I urge members to support amendments 5 and 8.

I turn to amendment 15, in Paul Sweeney’s name. At stage 2, I was unable to support a similar amendment that Paul Sweeney lodged. As I indicated then, medicines and medical devices are a reserved matter, and the situation is complex. The reservation includes matters relating to the regulation and control of medicines, such as their manufacture, distribution, importation, licensing and marketing. I undertook that my officials would look into that further, and we have carefully reconsidered the information gathering powers in the bill.

Our conclusion is that amendment 15 is not required. Section 12 of the bill contains a general power to seek information, and section 13 contains a wider power for more focused inquiries as part of a formal investigation. The general power to seek information from healthcare providers that is allowed by section 12 is appropriate, because the role of the patient safety commissioner is fundamentally about the safety of healthcare being provided to patients by those providers.

The healthcare providers are the direct interface with patients. Pharmaceutical companies and a range of others are one step removed from that, so it is appropriate that they are covered by the power in section 13, so that information can be compelled from them if and when it becomes necessary during the course of an investigation. If, for example, the commissioner were to instigate a formal investigation into hernia mesh—a subject that I know is of particular interest to Katy Clark—she or he would be able to require information from manufacturers and suppliers of hernia mesh if that information would be relevant to the investigation. Amendment to section 12 is not required.

The commissioner’s power under section 13 to require information that might be relevant to a formal investigation extends to any person, including manufacturers and suppliers of medicines or medical devices, subject to the general limitations contained in the reservation of medicines and medical supplies. We consider that, as part of a formal investigation, the power in section 13 is the appropriate context in which to empower the commissioner to require information that might be relevant to a formal investigation from such manufacturers and suppliers. The bill already provides that, so the amendment is not required. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 15.

I am also unable to support amendment 6, in the name of Carol Mochan. As my predecessor, Maree Todd, said in her evidence to the committee, professional regulators such as the General Medical Council do not have the same purpose as the patient safety commissioner. It upholds professional standards and will, when needed, take action against individuals, rather than focusing primarily on promoting learning and systemic improvement. I do not want to create a situation in which the bill might impede the willingness of healthcare professionals to be frank and open with the commissioner, and I believe that amendment 6 risks doing just that. It is also important to note that nothing in the bill prevents the commissioner from working with regulators for the benefit of patient safety. I urge members not to support amendment 6.

Carol Mochan (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 6 adds two additional bodies to the information-sharing requirements. I understand that the minister was not in favour of the amendment at stage 2, but, again, similar to my other amendments, I believe that it merely attempts to improve relationships and co-operation in the sharing of information.

At the evidence-taking stage and in the stage 1 report, although they understood that it might not always be appropriate, professional regulators were of the view that the lists as outlined in section 15(2)(d) could have been extended to include professional regulators to allow information sharing in situations

“where there is a concern that would be suitable for us to follow through on and investigate.”

Regulators recognise that it should be only when appropriate. As I said at stage 2, I found that suggestion to be reasonable, and I maintain that position. I urge the minister to think about that suggestion, because it would allow a broader scope of the provision of the information sharing that we want to be included in the amendment.

As we know, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman stated that the current list is fairly narrow. I have said previously that it is not our intention to extend the list beyond manageable levels, nor to extend it in a way that might impede healthcare professionals’ willingness to be frank and open with the commissioner. As the minister suggested, that is her difficulty with the amendment.

The amendment takes solid steps towards ensuring information sharing and duty of co-operation. I had hoped that the minister would accept the amendment in the way that it was offered, as an enhancement of information sharing.

Tess White

I also suggest that the minister reconsiders that point. The Scottish Conservatives lodged an amendment on information sharing at stage 2 with input from the GMC, which the minister said she would not support since it was unsuccessful. I understand that the minister has provided assurances to the GMC on how the commissioner and regulatory bodies will work in practice and share information. As the minister will not support Carol Mochan’s amendment 6, I seek clarity and assurances from the minister on that point. The Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group.

16:00

Paul Sweeney

Although Labour is minded to support the Government’s amendments in the group, it is disappointing that the Government is not minded to reciprocate on what I think are very reasonable, rational and logical adjustments to the bill that would make it clear and provide reassurance to a number of stakeholders who are deeply concerned about the potential for their genuinely held sense of injustice to be addressed.

Members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and those members of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee who are in the chamber, will be alive to those concerns, certainly in the case of mesh implants. The very nature of the concerning complaint is about the manufacture and testing of the product by the manufacturer. Therefore, putting that in the bill would provide great reassurance to those individuals who are affected that there will be capacity to look at that.

Although the minister seems to have stood back from her points about devolved competence and has provided some degree of reassurance that there will be scope to draw in individual organisations during the course of investigations when the primary focus of them will pertain to manufacturers, in the instance of mesh manufacture, for example, it seems obvious and logical to have that in the bill. Similarly, where there are clear interfaces with regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council, to have that stated explicitly in the bill would be reasonable.

I press amendment 15.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Section 12A—Information under the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019

Amendment 5 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 15—Confidentiality of information

Amendment 6 moved—[Carol Mochan].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

After section 15

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on co-operation with other bodies. Amendment 7, in the name of Carol Mochan, is grouped with amendment 16.

Carol Mochan

I am pleased to speak to amendments 7 and 16, in my name. It is important to note that the amendments are intended to achieve a common goal, which I think the minister and I share, of ensuring that there is strong co-operation between the patient safety commissioner for Scotland and other bodies. I have lodged amendment 7 to express my view, as I did at stage 2, that the extent of that co-operation between the patient safety commissioner for Scotland and other bodies must be far reaching and to ensure that duties exist both ways.

Having said that, I understand that the minister had concerns at stage 2. To allow further protections to be put in place, in the event that those concerns are still held, I have lodged amendment 16 to help to allay any fears about amendment 7. I believe that amendment 16 separates the Scottish bodies from section 15(2)(d) and applies the duty to co-operate only to them. I hope that that may allay any fears surrounding competence.

As I did at stage 2, I refer the minister to the stage 1 report, which highlighted the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s comments with regard to the clarity in the bill on the relationship between the patient safety commissioner for Scotland and the broader landscape. I think that the amendments that I have lodged today assist the bill in addressing such concerns. I repeat my point that amendment 16, in particular, has been drafted to overcome the minister’s concerns at stage 2, while maintaining the same spirit of ensuring strong co-operation in the exercise of functions that I know we both hope to achieve.

I move amendment 7.

Jenni Minto

Amendments 7 and 16 from Carol Mochan seek to add a duty on certain organisations to co-operate with the commissioner in the exercise of their functions and for the commissioner to reciprocate.

As I explained during the bill’s stage 2 debate, this Parliament does not have legislative competence to impose a statutory duty on the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, and that is still the case. When viewed in conjunction with Ms Mochan’s amendment 6 in group 6, amendment 7 also poses a legislative competence risk, since the Health and Safety Executive is reserved and we cannot impose a duty on it. For that reason I cannot support amendment 7.

With regard to amendment 16, which appears to be an evolution of amendment 7—I thank Carol Mochan for explaining that—I consider that specifying certain bodies carries a risk of limiting the current intentionally broad expectation that all public authorities with responsibilities and functions relating to the delivery of healthcare in Scotland will co-operate in the exercise of the commissioner’s functions. I believe that amendment 16 risks creating confusion rather than clarity.

Therefore, I ask members not to support the amendments.

The Presiding Officer (Alison Johnstone)

I call Carol Mochan to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 7.

Carol Mochan

It is disappointing that the minister will not accept amendment 16, which was lodged to allay fears about competency. We have been assured that that could be the position, should the minister choose to accept the amendment. With that in mind, I choose to press amendment 7.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Carol Mochan.]

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Jackie Baillie.]

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed.

The Minister for Energy and the Environment (Gillian Martin)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not reload. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Martin. We will make sure that that is recorded.

The Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care (Michael Matheson)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. We will make sure that that is recorded.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Jackie Baillie.]

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Section 21—Interpretation

16:15

The Presiding Officer

We move to group 8, which is on the meaning of healthcare. Amendment 19, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is the only amendment in the group.

Paul Sweeney

Amendment 19 seeks to include social care services in the definition of healthcare under section 21.

When I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, I made it clear that it would not widen the commissioner’s remit to include social care in its entirety but would instead enable the commissioner to consider social care in their investigations only when those services intersect with the elements of healthcare that fall within the commissioner’s remit.

The minister could not support my amendment at stage 2. Instead, she confirmed on the record that there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the commissioner from dealing with healthcare provided in a social care context. I welcomed that clarification and withdrew my amendment. However, on reflection and having consulted with stakeholders, I think it important, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the clarification be in the bill.

As the minister previously suggested that my earlier amendment might cause doubt as to whether the bill’s reference to healthcare included healthcare provided in contexts other than social care, I have worked on this amendment to address her validly raised concerns. In the light of that effort, I would welcome the Government’s support in clarifying the remit of the commissioner in the bill.

I move amendment 19.

Jenni Minto

I am not able to support amendment 19. Members will recall that, in its stage 1 report, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee called on the Scottish Government to confirm that the commissioner would be able to address matters arising at the intersection of health and social care. At stage 2, I was very happy to confirm that the commissioner could look at patient safety issues wherever healthcare was being provided, including in social care settings.

I reiterate that in the chamber today. The commissioner’s role is about safety in healthcare. I make it absolutely clear that there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the commissioner from dealing with healthcare provided in a social care setting or any other setting. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 19, which, rather than clarifying that point, risks creating doubt over whether the reference to healthcare includes healthcare that is provided in contexts other than social care, such as schools, prisons or, indeed, anywhere.

The Presiding Officer

I call Paul Sweeney to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 19.

Paul Sweeney

I am not persuaded at all by the minister’s point. For example, we, in this Parliament, named the committee the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for good reason: to reflect the span of the activities that are carried out and to have a particular focus on those interfaces, which are critical to patient safety.

I cite from my casework the recent example of an elderly patient who was subject to delayed discharge from an acute hospital into a social care setting, which jeopardised their safety to the point where, unfortunately, a hospital-acquired infection caused premature death. Such examples highlight an issue of patient safety that pertains to the interface of acute hospitals and social care settings, and it should be clarified in the bill.

The amendment is benign in its intent. The idea behind it is to clarify the definition. As a result, I do not think that it confuses things—it clarifies them.

I will therefore press the amendment, and I hope that members will support it.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

The Minister for Energy and the Environment (Gillian Martin)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My voting app did not refresh. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

I confirm that your vote was recorded.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

After section 21

Amendment 21 not moved.

Schedule 1—The office of Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 1, in the name of Emma Harper, is grouped with amendment 2.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am pleased to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are grouped together and which concern the appointment of the patient safety commissioner.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that it is crucial, particularly given the reasons that have led to the creation of the commissioner post, that patients and their families have trust in the commissioner. That trust might be undermined if the office were held by someone with a strong—and I emphasise “strong”—financial interest in healthcare. That includes those who are currently or have very recently been employed in healthcare or who have a controlling interest in or influence over, for example, a pharmaceutical company.

That said, I think that paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the bill might, as currently worded, go too far. The current wording would disqualify those with

“a financial interest in a health care provider”

from being appointed as commissioner, but that would also exclude someone who, for example, had a smaller number of shares in a pharmaceutical company. It seems like a very blanket approach, and such fixed, strict wording could exclude an otherwise very suitable, competent and qualified candidate. I am grateful to the minister for working with me on the amendments that I have lodged, which would remove the current disqualification criteria and replace them with a more nuanced approach.

Amendment 1 would require Parliament to inquire whether a person who was to be nominated for appointment as commissioner had a relevant financial interest. It would then be for Parliament to exercise its judgment about candidates, which would enhance the Parliament’s role and its accountability over the appointment of a commissioner. It would mean that good candidates would not be excluded from the outset on account of a minimal and/or indirect financial interest, including those who were part of a pension scheme that happened to have shares in a pharmaceutical company, something that appears to be relatively common in practice. It is my view that the amendment would increase the pool and diversity of candidates applying for the position of patient safety commissioner, which, in turn, would deliver the best possible outcome for patients.

Amendment 2 would simply leave out subparagraph 5(d) of schedule 1, for the reasons explained in relation to amendment 1, and I urge members to support amendments 1 and 2.

I move amendment 1.

Jackie Baillie

Although I broadly support the intention behind amendments 1 and 2, I have a couple of reservations that they would pave the way to allowing past cabinet secretaries and ministers to be appointed as patient safety commissioner. I would be grateful if the minister and Emma Harper could confirm, in summing up, whether it is their intention to exclude former health ministers and cabinet secretaries from the patient safety commissioner role. In many cases, decisions that have been made in office in the past might have an impact on matters relating to patient safety now, which would constitute a clear conflict of interest. Clarity on that point would be most welcome.

On a related point, the Nolan principles of public life specify a period of two years from leaving office to taking up a public appointment. Why has that been reduced in amendment 1 to one year?

Jenni Minto

First, on Jackie Baillie’s point, paragraph 5 of schedule 1 still excludes the persons to whom Ms Baillie referred.

I thank Emma Harper for working with me on the amendments. As she has said, it is critical that we do not, in haste, disqualify any otherwise suitable individual based on a minimal financial interest, such as shares in a pension plan. The amendments put forward a more sensible approach and would not lead to an individual’s automatic exclusion; instead, they would, importantly and rightly, allow the Parliament to exercise its judgment on suitable candidates. I fully support the amendments, and I urge members to do the same.

Emma Harper

To be clear, I welcome the Parliament’s being able to exercise judgment about the candidates that are chosen. I am not seeking to amend the bill in relation to the disqualification of members of Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the bill.

I urge members to support my amendments, and I press amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

16:30

The Presiding Officer

Group 10 is on resource sharing. Amendment 22, in the name of Tess White, is the only amendment in the group.

Tess White

I will speak briefly on amendment 22. It is a probing amendment to facilitate debate on the resources that the commissioner will require to carry out their work, and to enable Parliament to consider whether those resources could be shared with other commissioners.

The SNP convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Kenneth Gibson, wrote to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in January to express concerns about

“the increasing number of commissioners with their associated costs”.

For 2023-24, those costs amount to £16.6 million, which is £1.2 million more than was budgeted for in the previous year and 5.4 per cent more than was forecast. The finance committee convener added that a

“more strategic approach to the ... resourcing”

of the commissioner system

“might be considered in future.”

Amendment 22 suggests a way in which such a strategic approach could be implemented.

Although I will withdraw my amendment, I urge the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to consider value for money for the taxpayer if the commissioner system continues to expand and the number of commissioners increases from seven to 14. Commissioners can be very valuable, especially as they are operationally independent of the Scottish Government. However, the system cannot keep growing so significantly without formal review or evaluation of its effectiveness.

I move amendment 22.

Jackie Baillie

I very much welcome Tess White’s comments. I understand that the SPCB considers resources for commissioners as a matter of course each year, and those decisions are also subject to scrutiny by the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee. Although I have sympathy with amendment 22, I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a provision in the bill. For that reason, we will not support it. Tess White intends to withdraw it, but our comments on it will be on the record. I understand the wider point that she is making.

Jenni Minto

I have discussed with Tess White the basis for the Scottish Government’s opposition to amendment 22. It seeks to create a duty for the patient safety commissioner to consider whether it would be effective for resources to be shared with other parliamentary commissioners. I hope that members will agree that requiring the commissioner to proactively consider resource sharing in that way would not be an effective use of their time.

I am strongly of the view that the commissioner should be focused solely on patient safety. Resourcing for parliamentary commissioners is, as has been pointed out, a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Section 19 provides that

“The Commissioner must comply with any direction given to the Commissioner by the Parliamentary corporation in relation to ... the sharing of premises, staff, services or other resources.”

The amendment is therefore unnecessary and it would create a distraction. I appreciate Tess White’s intention to withdraw it.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Will the minister give way?

The Presiding Officer

I believe that the minister has completed her contribution.

I understand from Tess White’s contribution that she wishes to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Presiding Officer

Group 11 is on reviewing the commissioner’s work. Amendment 23, in the name of Tess White, is the only amendment in the group.

Tess White

I lodged amendment 23 as an alternative approach to the stage 2 amendment that would have required the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, or the committee concerned with patient safety, to propose a debate in Parliament on the commissioner’s annual report. Amendment 23 softens that requirement such that the committee must instead “consider” that report once it has been laid before the Scottish Parliament.

The minister’s predecessor and her official told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee at stage 1 that

“There will be a strong role for Parliament in scrutinising what the commissioner does.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 14 March 2023; c 3.]

However, at stage 3, we still have questions about what that role will look like. I appreciate that the relevant committee may propose a debate about the commissioner’s work at any time. The minister has raised that point with me. I also appreciate that the committee has the autonomy to decide on its work programme. However, the reality is that, in politics, the protagonists change and priorities become refocused.

Martin Whitfield (South Scotland) (Lab)

This is really just a point of clarification. I am sure that I am correct in thinking that the amendment contains no implicit criticism about the committee system not pursuing commissioners’ annual reports and that it merely represents helpful guidance to remind the commissioner of what will happen with their annual report.

Tess White

That is what the amendment says—it is just a reminder, and an important one. It would create an opportunity to ensure that scrutiny does not fall through the net and that the work of the patient safety commissioner has adequate oversight. I encourage members to support it.

I move amendment 23.

Jenni Minto

I have discussed with Tess White why the Scottish Government will not support amendment 23, and I thank her for her engagement. The amendment seeks to create a duty for the parliamentary committee that has patient safety in its remit—currently, that is the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—to consider the commissioner’s annual report, once it has been laid before Parliament. As is set out in part 5 of schedule 1, annual reports on the commissioner’s activity will be produced and made publicly available. It will therefore be open to any parliamentary committee, or indeed anyone, to consider those annual reports.

It is not the bill’s role to legislate for how future parliamentary committees and, by extension, Parliament as a whole spend their time. I strongly believe that attempting to do so would create an unwelcome precedent. I do not see that the amendment would make Parliament’s ability to consider or scrutinise the commissioner’s activities any more effective. Indeed, I believe that, in seeking to dictate how a committee may spend its time in the future, the amendment would risk inadvertently hindering Parliament’s vital scrutiny functions. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 23.

The Presiding Officer

I invite Tess White to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 23.

Tess White

I will press the amendment; I will not withdraw it, because it is important as a check-in point. The amendment is just a guidance note. I sit on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and, if the amendment is not agreed to, I will ensure that we address the commissioner’s report in the first year. However, I will be disappointed if the provision is not included in the bill.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition (Màiri McAllan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not connect. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms McAllan. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Bill Kidd

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have issues with my machine—it is not working. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Kidd. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone seems to have stalled. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Stewart. We will ensure that that is recorded.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on amendment 23, in the name of Tess White, is: For 48, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Schedule 2—Public authorities legislation

Amendment 8 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill relates to a protected matter, so it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

Business Motion

Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill: Stage 3

Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Contents

Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill: Stage 3