I will seek to withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 86 and 87 not moved.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I am grateful to the people’s panel for its time and engagement in considering this national emergency, and to the committees for commissioning the work.

As Bob Doris said, the panel was asked to come to a consensus on an issue that has been identified as a national emergency for a number of years, and on proposals that have been discussed in the chamber on a number of occasions. The report is very interesting in showing us what a group of that nature made of the issue.

Although the issue has been identified as a national emergency for a number of years, the latest figures show a 12 per cent increase in drug deaths from the previous year. As the cabinet secretary said, we lost 1,172 people to drug-related deaths in 2023, and we all know that those deaths were preventable. We owe it to the loved ones of those people who have died to take immediate and radical action. That is what members expects from the Scottish Government.

As a number of members have said, Scotland remains the worst nation in Europe for drug deaths. An emergency of such severity is the result not only of underfunding of drug prevention and rehabilitation services, the criminal legal framework and our health services, but of a far wider societal crisis.

The cabinet secretary accepted the link to deprivation. Carol Mochan spoke about the range of factors involved and the complex nature of the challenges. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the chamber that the mortality rate of people who live in the poorest areas is more than double the Scottish average. The council areas that are bearing the brunt of the crisis are the urban centres and the post-industrial heartlands that have also suffered the sharpest decline in their public services following years of austerity.

It is political choices that cause communities to crumble. People in desperate situations sometimes see no other option than to turn to drugs, and that is where Governments have let them down. The cabinet secretary and Elena Whitham spoke of the highly toxic drug supply that is in circulation, particularly in Scotland. I welcome the opening of Thistle, the United Kingdom’s first safer drug consumption facility, which I hope will prevent further deaths and create a rise in the number of people who choose to move towards rehabilitation. However, we must recognise that the facility is in Glasgow and it will do little to help those outside Glasgow city who suffer from addiction. As Annie Wells pointed out, the Thistle is a small part of the solution, and the real challenge is how we address the root causes.

I am pleased that the people’s panel made 19 recommendations and that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary have indicated acceptance of them all. However, I agree with Maggie Chapman that the problem is not that we do not know what needs to be done but that we need political will.

Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke of the consensus, and I think that there is a consensus across the chamber about what needs to be done. Clare Haughey made an important point about the need for multiyear packages. It is impossible for organisations to plan if they do not know what their funding is. Collette Stevenson spoke about trusted relationships and the importance of lived experience, and that point was also made by Sue Webber. Members have previously discussed the significant issue of stigma.

Audrey Nicoll spoke specifically about the criminal justice aspect. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I am aware of the massive challenge that drugs pose in our justice system.

This is a complex debate. However, we cannot say that we accept what the Scottish Government is doing on the issue. The reality is that the number of deaths continues to get higher, and urgent action needs to be taken to address that.

It has recently been reported that almost 10 per cent of the 2,000 women who have died at the hands of men in the United Kingdom over the past 15 years have been killed by their own sons. What more does the First Minister believe the Scottish Government can do to raise awareness of that risk and improve support for women?

Amendment 89 would require that regulations be brought forward on reporting of the tax and ownership status of publicly owned care services, and amendment 90 seeks to extend freedom of information rights to publicly owned care services. The minister and her officials were kind enough to meet me yesterday and offered to have further discussions before stage 3.

I indicated to the minister that I was not planning on pressing either amendment to a vote today and am very open to discussions about their drafting. There are specific issues relating to the definition of care. I advise that the definition that I seek to rely on is the one that is in the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002. I would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter.

The background is that we have moved away from having a care sector that was dominated by publicly owned and run organisations providing publicly paid-for care. Of the 42,489 registered care home places in March 2022, 77 per cent were in privately run care homes and 80 per cent of the staff of care homes are in the private sector. There is significant market concentration in much of Scotland, with the 10 largest for-profit care home providers accounting for more than a third of registered places.

A significant number of organisations are registered outside the UK and involve private equity and real-estate investment trusts and US-based hedge funds. Across the UK, the five largest chains amount for nearly 20 per cent of beds, according to work from 2016.

I will give an example that members might be aware of, or might have been involved in as constituency representatives—namely, the collapse in 2011 of Southern Cross Healthcare, which was owned by Blackstone Group. The consequences of that affected 31,000 care home residents, including in the constituency that I represented at the time. Many of those Southern Cross care homes were sold to Four Seasons Health Care, which is owned by Jersey-based private equity firm, Terra Firma. In April 2017, 220 care homes and 17,000 residents were affected when that organisation, too, became bankrupt.

Four Seasons, like many private equity operations, consisted of complex corporate structures. The Financial Times reported that it consisted of 200 companies, arranged in 12 layers, in at least five jurisdictions, including several offshore territories. Tax avoidance and profit shifting were central to the operations.

Both my amendments are based on the principles of transparency, following the public pound and that, where publicly funded care is provided by organisations other than public authorities, there should be freedom of information rights and transparency in relation to tax and ownership. As the committee will be aware, freedom of information rights do not exist outside public authorities. That was particularly evident during Covid, when information that relatives were able to obtain using rights that they had with local authority providers was not available from other providers.

Jackie Baillie has spoken this morning about the experience of families during Covid. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which the Scottish Parliament passed in 2002, was designed to be flexible and to enable, under section 5, the addition of named providers or categories. In reality, that power has rarely been used by ministers. Since Covid, families of care home residents and freedom of information campaigners have been frustrated by the lack of progress.

Members of Parliament expressed their frustration in 2013, when updating of designations under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 resulted in an amendment that required reports from ministers every two years, on use of the section 5 power. Despite that, the power has basically been used to report that no action has been taken. There was a Scottish Government consultation in 2019 on use of the section 5 powers, and care was one of the examples that was focused on. That could have resulted in the extension to care services of designations under the act, but the Scottish Government decided not to progress with that.

In May 2022, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament reported, in its inquiry on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that public sector bodies that deliver public sector services should be subject to freedom of information rights. The Scottish Information Commissioner has consistently called for the designation of providers of health and social care services as subject to the 2002 act, especially following the Covid pandemic. Repeated polling by the commissioner has shown public support for that principle, and the consultation that I held for my proposed member’s bill on freedom of information reform in 2022 showed overwhelming support for the principle.

I look forward to discussing those matters further with the minister. As I have said, I do not plan to press either amendment 89 or amendment 90 to a vote today, but I just want to say to the minister that there is a great deal of frustration about the delays in extending freedom of information requirements within the care sector—in particular, following experiences during Covid. However, I will discuss the issue further with the minister before stage 3.

In relation to tax and ownership, given the nature of the changes that have taken place in the care sector, we need information about ownership structures and tax status, because we do not want more residents being evicted as a result of care homes with complex and non-transparent ownership arrangements going bust. We should learn the lessons of history in order to ensure that we are not put in that position again.

As I have said, though, I do not plan to press amendments 89 and 90 to a vote.

Amendment 89, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 41—Reserving right to participate in procurement by type of organisation

Sandesh Gulhane has raised two points. I will attempt to respond to both. His first point relates to both the cost and quality of care that is provided in the private sector. It is, of course, the case that most private care companies and organisations in Scotland provide good-quality care, but the principle must be that, if the public sector is paying for a service, we should have access to a basic level of information about that service. That was the intention behind the 2002 act, but steps have not been taken to extend freedom of information requirements to that sector. As I indicated, a percentage of the sector has been financialised, with Southern Cross Healthcare being just one example. When things go wrong, that can be serious for individuals and for their families. We must have robust models and when we, as taxpayers, are funding care we must ensure that we are satisfied that we are providing some level of service and security for residents.

The second point concerns a live issue that my proposed member’s bill grapples with. To be clear, the bill would require the aspects of a service that are funded by the taxpayer, and the parts of an organisation that deliver publicly paid-for services, to comply with FOI rights. The bill would not affect any parts of an organisation that are funded in other ways. That is the principle for how freedom of information would operate for organisations that provide both public and private sector services.

My amendments are narrowly drafted. Amendment 89 would require ministers, by way of regulations, to

“specify requirements for bodies providing publicly funded care services”

in relation to “transparency of ownership” and “tax status” and would require a higher degree of transparency from bodies that are not publicly owned, but which provide care that is funded by the taxpayer. I think that that addresses Sandesh Gulhane’s point.

Amendment 90 would require the extension of freedom of information regulations to care providers, for the reasons that I have already outlined. I understand from my discussions with the minister yesterday that she is likely to say that a further consultation will take place. I submit that Parliament should communicate a very clear message that we expect transparency when the public pound is being used to pay for care, and that we expect to have freedom of information rights regarding tax and ownership. I look forward to discussing those matters more, as the bill proceeds.

I move amendment 89.

Amendment 89 would require that regulations be brought forward on reporting of the tax and ownership status of publicly owned care services, and amendment 90 seeks to extend freedom of information rights to publicly owned care services. The minister and her officials were kind enough to meet me yesterday and offered to have further discussions before stage 3.

I indicated to the minister that I was not planning on pressing either amendment to a vote today and am very open to discussions about their drafting. There are specific issues relating to the definition of care. I advise that the definition that I seek to rely on is the one that is in the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002. I would, of course, be happy to discuss the matter.

The background is that we have moved away from having a care sector that was dominated by publicly owned and run organisations providing publicly paid-for care. Of the 42,489 registered care home places in March 2022, 77 per cent were in privately run care homes; 80 per cent of staffing in care homes is in the private sector. There is significant market concentration in much of Scotland, with the 10 largest for-profit care home providers accounting for more than a third of registered places.

A significant number of organisations are registered outside the UK and involve private equity and real-estate investment trusts and US-based hedge funds. Across the UK, the five largest chains account for nearly 20 per cent of beds, according to work from 2016.

I will give an example that members might be aware of, or might have been involved in as constituency representatives—namely, the collapse in 2011 of Southern Cross Healthcare, which was owned by Blackstone Group. The consequences of that affected 31,000 care home residents, including in the constituency that I represented at the time. Many of those Southern Cross care homes were sold to Four Seasons Health Care, which is owned by Jersey-based private equity firm, Terra Firma. In April 2017, 220 care homes and 17,000 residents were affected when that organisation, too, became bankrupt.

Four Seasons, like many private equity operations, consisted of complex corporate structures. The Financial Times reported that it consisted of 200 companies, arranged in 12 layers, in at least five jurisdictions, including several offshore territories. Tax avoidance and profit shifting were central to the operations.

Both my amendments are based on the principles of transparency, following the public pound and that, where publicly funded care is provided by organisations other than public authorities, there should be freedom of information rights and transparency in relation to tax and ownership. As the committee will be aware, freedom of information rights do not exist outside public authorities. That was particularly evident during Covid, when information that relatives were able to obtain using rights that they had with local authority providers was not available from other providers.

Jackie Baillie has spoken this morning about the experience of families during Covid. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which the Scottish Parliament passed in 2002, was designed to be flexible and to enable, under section 5, the addition of named providers or categories. In reality, that power has rarely been used by ministers. Since Covid, families of care home residents and freedom of information campaigners have been frustrated by the lack of progress.

Members of Parliament expressed their frustration in 2013, when updating of designations under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 resulted in an amendment that required reports from ministers every two years, on use of the section 5 power. Despite that, the power has basically been used to report that no action has been taken. There was a Scottish Government consultation in 2019 on use of the section 5 powers, and care was one of the examples that was focused on. That could have resulted in the extension to care services of designations under the act, but the Scottish Government decided not to progress with that.

In May 2022, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament reported, in its inquiry on the operation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that public sector bodies that deliver public sector services should be subject to freedom of information rights. The Scottish Information Commissioner has consistently called for the designation of providers of health and social care services as subject to the 2002 act, especially following the Covid pandemic. Repeated polling by the commissioner has shown public support for that principle, and the consultation that I held for my proposed member’s bill on freedom of information reform in 2022 showed overwhelming support for the principle.

Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that you said that you are not trying to engineer higher conviction rates; instead, you are trying to modernise the system. However, what is the risk of our having lower conviction rates in rape cases as a result of these changes and the move to two verdicts and a two-thirds majority?

From what you are saying, then, you have come to the conclusion that, if there were to be a change in conviction rates—particularly in rape cases, given, as you have said, the concern about those rates being low—it would be an increase rather than a reduction. I appreciate that that is not necessarily the intent, but it is quite understandable that people will be worried about the risk of the conviction rate being lowered. Are you satisfied that the risk is low in that respect?

Thank you.