Chamber and committees

I do not support the amendments in this group. Amendments 12 and 20 would require the commissioner to set performance standards for their own office and then to report against those standards in their annual report. Although I agree entirely that there is a need for a robust system to monitor the commissioner’s performance, I am not convinced that those amendments add anything—apart from a burden of more paperwork—to what is already in the bill.

The bill already obliges the commissioner to produce a strategic plan of activity and to include a review of their activities in their annual report. It seems right to me that it is against that plan of activity, as well as against feedback from patients and from this committee, that the commissioner’s performance should be assessed. I find the idea that the commissioner should have to come up with a separate set of performance standards to be assessed against to be an odd one, which is likely only to muddy the waters regarding what the true expectations of the commissioner should be.

It seems to me that the time and resource that the commissioner would have to spend coming up with further standards and then consulting on them, as amendment 20 would require, would be better spent in getting on with the job of speaking up for patient safety. The bill as drafted already contains an element of annual reporting, but it must be remembered that some of the commissioner’s work will take time to achieve and might become apparent only outwith an annual reporting cycle.

Amendment 13 would require the committee to propose a debate in Parliament, about the commissioner’s annual report, every year. The committee is already free to propose a debate about the commissioner at any time. There is no requirement for legislation to create that right and using the law to tell Parliament, ourselves and our successors what to spend time on risks setting an unwelcome precedent. We should trust those who are elected to this place to know which issues matter to their constituents.

The same point can be made about amendment 32, which would require Parliament to arrange a review of the commissioner within three years. If dissatisfied with the commissioner, the committee would be able to carry out an investigation into their work and to report on that to Parliament. However, Parliament already has scope to review the commissioner’s work and role in whichever way we deem appropriate, which includes looking at the commissioner’s place in the pre-existing patient safety landscape. It seems to me that amendment 32 would serve only to tie the commissioner’s hands regarding the approach that they might want to take and might break the golden thread that Dr Gulhane spoke about. I therefore urge members not to agree to the amendments in the group.

I have lodged amendment 1 in response to calls from stakeholders, and an emphasis by the committee in its stage 1 report, on the need for a co-operative approach to patient safety. I whole-heartedly agree with that principle, and therefore I am keen to clarify, with this amendment, that we expect such a co-operative spirit to extend to all public authorities that have functions relating to healthcare, as well as to healthcare providers.

I do not feel able to support Carol Mochan’s amendment 28, because, although we are all hopeful and expectant that a spirit of collegiate working to improve patient safety will extend as far as possible, I am mindful that we cannot propose to Parliament an amendment that is outside its competence. We are just not able to impose a duty on the Patient Safety Commissioner for England.

I move amendment 1.

In respect of amendment 1, our aspiration for the patient safety commissioner is that they work in a co-operative way as much as possible. Although I am unable to support Carol Mochan’s amendment 28, due to its seeking to impose a duty that is outwith our competence, I do not disagree with the spirit in which it has, I think, been lodged. In the event that the member moves the amendment, though, I urge members not to support it, on account of the competence issues that it presents.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Although I have moved an amendment to drop section 4, recognising that there is existing legislative provision in the Equality Act 2010, I whole-heartedly encourage any steps by the commissioner to embrace the spirit of such communication in their public-facing activity.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—The planning process

Amendment 3 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Frequency of planning

Amendment 4 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

After section 7

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

Amendment 21 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

I am not able to support the amendment. The committee, in its stage 1 report, called on the Government to confirm that the commissioner will be able to address matters arising at the intersection of health and social care. I am happy to confirm on the record today that the commissioner’s role is about safety in healthcare, and there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the commissioner from dealing with healthcare that is provided in a social care context or any other context.

I hope that Paul Sweeney will accept that confirmation and will not press amendment 33, which, rather than clarifying matters, might create some doubt about whether the bill’s reference to “health care” includes healthcare that is provided in contexts other than social care. I therefore ask Paul Sweeney not to press amendment 33.

In moving my amendments, I want to ensure that the commissioner can access the data that is needed to do their job. Where I oppose amendments, that is so that we can try to protect the spirit of openness and frankness and not threaten the improvements that we all strive for.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments 7, 8 and 9 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Paul Sweeney].

That question is along the same lines as that asked by your colleague Dr Gulhane. I have offered to send the committee the complex mesh surgical service pathway. I am aware of the evidence that you received on 2 May. I felt that Dr Mathers clarified in that meeting that an electronic referral from the health board to the service is required. As I said, we will send the complex mesh surgical service pathway to the committee so that you have sight of it.

Dr Gulhane, that is what I said yesterday. I did the same thing. We have taken that away and will find out why that is happening.

I was pleased to meet Professor Anna Glasier very early after she was appointed. Her skills and personality embed exactly what women would like to see in their health champion. As you indicated, we have prioritised the menopause and endometriosis. I will have further discussions with the women’s health team about how we can expand on those. It is important to say that, although Anna Glasier is the champion, we also have a group of officers who are working further on the plan. Greig Chalmers leads the group specifically on this.

We have a lot to do. In a meeting last week, I said that, until we can say “health” without having to put the word “women’s” before it, we have a long way to go. However, I am confident that, with Professor Glasier’s leadership and the wealth of groups of women who want to get involved in women’s health and to raise it to the headlines, that can only be welcomed.

I am afraid that I have no information on the incontinence plan. I apologise.

I have read some of the reports from women who really struggled to explain to, and be listened to by, their GPs in the years leading up to 2015—when the issue was given front-page billing in media reports—and I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been for the women.

The work that has been done in Scotland and the cross-party work that Parliament has done has really improved everyone’s knowledge of the impact of vaginal mesh on women. As I indicated earlier, the fact that we have set up that specialist service and that specialist services are being set up in NHS England, too, with options to go abroad, is really helpful.

In an earlier answer to a supplementary question from Stephanie Callaghan, I indicated the training that NHS England has created for GPs and the importance of the work that Dr O’Kelly is doing to ensure that Scottish GPs can access that training, which is absolutely key to getting it right. I also refer back to the individuals in each of the health boards who are there to provide support.

Can you cover the point about medical records, Greig?