Chamber and committees

This question is more for Mr Dunlop, I think.

In the debate on this issue that Kaukab Stewart brought to the chamber earlier in the parliamentary session, it was widely recognised that the issues raised with regard to cricket might not be unique to cricket. Obviously it is important that we take this opportunity to look towards the future and help ensure that such situations do not happen again anywhere in sport and that we provide an opportunity for good-practice sharing.

Given that, would sportscotland consider forming, at an appropriate time, a representative working group to look at the findings of the independent report and to prioritise actions that can be taken to help all governing bodies of sport be fully inclusive? Such a working group could include governing bodies themselves and a representative body in the form of the Scottish Sports Association to ensure that sports are involved in all discussions and that resulting actions and developments are done with sports, not just to them.

I just have one question, which I will direct to Vicky Irons. What impact does confusion about lines of accountability have on the planning, quality and delivery of services?

In the letter, could we also ask for an update on the consultation that is still outstanding? Your point that we probably should have seen the SI earlier is even more concerning, given the closing date of the consultation that we have been advised of. There could have been several weeks where a consultation was still live but we were being asked to consider the instrument.

I note from the cabinet secretary’s statement that students are being employed part-time to add capacity. Although I recognise that that is vital experience, what structures are being put in place to support such students and to ensure that they are not overworked or put under undue pressure that may affect their studies?

This remains an extremely difficult and demanding time for our health and social care systems, which is why the impact and legacy of Covid should never be underestimated. Months of delayed appointments, cancelled procedures and the frustrations, worries and problems that they bring cannot be fixed overnight. We should not forget that, for many, the pandemic is not over. It is likely that Covid will have an impact on all manner of care this winter, which is why we need preventative action.

Those who are eligible for vaccination must be encouraged to come forward, and people need to know their rights and what they should expect. We must ensure that there are long-term, sustainable improvements to waiting times. Tackling waiting times requires action to keep the population well and prevent people from having to attend hospital in the first place. We must also ensure that we minimise other factors that disrupt hospital capacity.

Normality seems very far away for our wonderful health and social care staff, whom we must keep well to ensure that we minimise disruption this winter. While the rest of society has been able to take a breath, our NHS and social care staff simply have not had that chance. For that alone, we should be endlessly grateful for their fortitude. Behind every waiting time statistic is a team of clinicians, support staff and social care workers who are trying their best. We must listen to what they need and support them when they ask. Without their hard work, determination and expertise, there is no NHS. Keeping them well is not simply about mitigating and protecting against Covid; it is also about taking other measures and making changes to terms and conditions.

The cabinet secretary, Jackie Baillie, Alex Cole-Hamilton and I attended a meeting earlier this year with the RCN to hear from nurses. One thing that came out clearly was the impact of the lack of flexible working patterns on nurses, who then leave NHS employment. In many instances, the situation results in nurses taking retirement only to return to work in better shifts as bank cover, often in similar roles to the ones that they have just left. At the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee yesterday, I was pleased to hear from Alex McMahon that work on the matter was in progress, and I would be grateful for any update that the minister has on the issue in his closing speech.

Although such steps are welcome, we need to hear from other health professionals about what they need, and to address how to prevent others from being in the same position as the nurses from whom we heard at our meeting with the RCN. We need to ensure that the safe staffing legislation is implemented.

We must also ensure that any patients who are impacted by cancellations are kept as fully informed as possible, and that they receive appropriate support and help to keep as well as possible while they wait for their operation—I raised that point yesterday at the committee. The cumulative effect of the pandemic and those factors, among others, cannot be ignored.

I want to end with a reflection on the impact that the cost of living crisis will have on our NHS and waiting times this winter. Over winter, we will see the acute reality in our hospitals of the absolute mess that the reckless UK Government has caused. We will see people presenting at A and E with malnutrition and conditions that are associated with it, and we will see people with chronic illnesses and disabilities facing massive debt for running the machinery that keeps them alive and facilitates their everyday lives. Despite all that, all the UK Government does is hand out tax cuts to the wealthiest and lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses.

I am just about finished—I am sorry.

We know the long-term impacts of wealth inequality. There are children today who will see their health impacted well into adulthood by the cruel Tory regime and the decisions that it is taking now. We know the impacts that Tory policies had in our communities during the 80s, and here we are again. UK Government ministers should be ashamed; instead, they are doubling down with lines in the media such as

“You won’t like this budget if you”

support

“the poor”.

We need to tackle waiting times, delayed discharge and other issues at the acute end as best we can but, with this UK Government, we are doing that with one hand tied behind our back. All the while, the UK Government continues to implement despicable policies that will impact families across Scotland for generations.

Those listening earlier will probably recognise this question, because I put it to the first panel. During the pandemic’s most acute period, we had really good information at national level about services and what patients’ care would look like, and a lot of people valued that. Many will understand why operations have to be postponed, but some constituents feel that information on next steps and the other support that is available while they wait for a new operation date is not what they would like it be. What work is being done at health board level to ensure that patients have information on how to keep themselves well and how to get support while waiting for an operation? I also want to link that to Emma Harper’s earlier question and ask: what communication is being provided on urgent care?

I will direct that question to Dr Armstrong, given the size of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

During the pandemic’s most acute period, the public received a large amount of information about services and what their care would look like, and many people very much valued that. Many will understand why operations have to be postponed, but some constituents feel that information is lacking on next steps and what other support is available while they wait for a new operation date.

What work is being done to ensure that patients have information on how to keep themselves well and get support while waiting for an operation or, indeed, when an operation is cancelled? I direct that question to Caroline Lamb.

I, too, thank the members of the SPPA Committee for their work on the inquiry, and thank all who gave evidence. One of the key points from the report was that, compared with other legislatures, the Scottish Parliament introduced more measures to ensure that our members could continue to participate and that the functions of Parliament could continue. I place on record our thanks to all those who made that possible and worked to ensure that Parliament could continue to function.

As a new MSP and one with a disability, the hybrid system has allowed me to participate when I might otherwise have struggled to be here or have exacerbated my condition as a result of trying to get here—or, indeed, as this week, when I am recovering from a cold.

We were rightly proud at the start of this session when Scotland elected its most diverse Parliament yet. I hope that, by continuing and improving remote participation, more people may consider putting themselves forward to stand. We cannot be complacent or content with the progress that we have made so far.

As well as enabling diversity among elected representatives, the hybrid system has allowed committees to take evidence from people we might otherwise not have been able to be physically present. That opens up opportunities to hear, either formally or informally, from groups and individuals who for health reasons, or because of caring responsibilities or travel implications, would not normally have attended Parliament.

Remote participation is also one way to move towards the Parliament’s net zero ambitions, as was pointed out in the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s contribution to the committee’s report.

I hope that, in committees, those factors will continue to be taken into consideration and that remote participation will be offered as a genuine alternative, rather than simply seeing a default return to in-person participation. I take on board the comments in the report that, particularly for committee proceedings, the current system is not ideal for discussion compared with having everyone in the room. I hope that the upcoming roll-out of the new system will allow hybrid proceedings to more accurately reflect how chamber and committee business function.

I agree with the committee that there should not be a system to request remote participation and that it should be left to the discretion of individuals. Putting in a system to request remote participation would, in my view, be onerous.

Proxy voting, which has already been mentioned—and, indeed, is mentioned in the report—would be a good addition to the adaptations that have been made so far. The report notes that there is

“value in piloting a proxy voting”

system and that the committee would consult on

“how such a scheme would function”.

It would allow those who are unable to attend sessions remotely to cast their votes and to represent their constituents. Paragraph 194 of the report refers to

“certain defined circumstances including parental leave and illness”

and I ask that, in its consultation, the committee add bereavement leave to the list of eligible circumstances for a proxy vote. I do not think that anyone in the chamber would expect a member to have to be present after the loss of a loved one.

The system that is used to request proxy voting should mirror human resources practices that are conducted elsewhere in Parliament. We expect our staff teams to give sick notes and, although I respect everyone’s right to privacy, especially with regard to their health, such an approach would provide a straightforward way of making a proxy voting request.

However, we should be aware that caring or parental responsibilities that would stop a member being able to vote might need to be met suddenly, and whatever approach we design should be adaptable to such situations. I also recognise the comments that were made earlier about the parameters for a scheme. That issue will require careful consideration and is probably not something that we will sort out this afternoon.

We would very much welcome a wider conversation on substitute arrangements for committees. The suspension of standing orders in the first part of the session allowed parties to adapt quickly if someone was ill or unavailable, and we would like that flexibility to be made permanent. It would provide greater flexibility to parties and has the potential to stop knock-on disruption to multiple committees as a result of one MSP’s absence.

I am pleased that there is agreement on keeping the hybrid system, because I believe not only that it will allow those in the current chamber to deal with workload, health and family situations in a flexible and manageable way; if we continue to make progress, it might be the change required to ensure that more people consider standing for elected office in 2026.

I will probably go back to Leigh for my next question as well. Is there an argument in the first instance—we touched on this earlier—for preventative measures to be taken in areas with higher excess mortality or where the number of healthy years of people’s lives are expected to be lower?