Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

I am very grateful to my colleague for taking the intervention. She is speaking about the SCVO, and it is crucial that, in any process of reform of the sector, the SCVO is a strong partner and takes a leadership role because of its extensive work to represent charities across Scotland of different size and scale. Does Pam Duncan-Glancy agree that, when the cabinet secretary sets out a plan for the next stage of engaging with charities, the SCVO very much needs to be at the heart of that?

Absolutely—I take John Mason’s point. We must find ways to share such information appropriately. The point that I am making is that there is a danger of creating too high a barrier for people who are going through the process of trying to improve their lives after a variety of situations. We need to strike that balance, because people will want to have confidence and to know who is in control of and governing a charity, but we need to be careful about how we go about that and what the thresholds are for a person to remain anonymous.

I reiterate Scottish Labour’s support for the bill. However, we call on the Government to adopt an open, positive approach and to work with all parties to strengthen the bill and iron out the concerns that charities have raised. Moreover, I urge the cabinet secretary to engage further with charities on the work to which she has committed, to ensure that the bill carries the confidence of the sector and, more widely, so that we can have a conversation about how we strengthen and support charities across Scotland.

I am pleased to lead this debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. At the outset, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I currently serve as chair of the trustees of the Neilston War Memorial Association.

I take the opportunity to thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for its hard work in scrutinising the bill. I pay tribute to all the former members of the committee. As Jeremy Balfour rightly recognised, there are many newbies participating in the debate who have inherited this important piece of work, but we are nonetheless keen to make our contribution as the bill moves through its stages. I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy, a former member of the committee, worked very hard on the bill during stage 1, including through the stage 1 report process.

From the outset, I want to be clear in stating that Scottish Labour supports the bill and believes that it is critical that charities operate with transparency and accountability. We recognise that the bill will update Scottish charity legislation by aligning it with key tenets of the regulations that govern charities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In common with what we have heard from other opening speakers, I note that it is evident that some aspects of the bill should be refined and clarified as we move to stages 2 and 3. In particular, we should consider how the new regulations will impact on and interact with different charities in different ways. For example, it is critical that we do not overburden charities with regulation to such a degree that it limits their resources and stifles their ability to perform their primary function of delivering support for the causes that they champion and that are supported widely by the public in a variety of ways.

On regulation, it is important that, at stage 2, there is greater focus on exploring the remit and resources of OSCR, the independent regulator and registrar for Scotland’s charities, to ensure that there is a proportionate increase in funding, if required, to allow OSCR to carry out its responsibilities effectively. I appreciate that we have already had the beginning of a discussion about the wider piece of work that is required in reviewing the charity sector in Scotland and the support for it.

It is clear that the wider context is important. I have highlighted in the chamber the significant financial pressures that third sector organisations across Scotland face. We know that the reality is that the majority of charities are small local organisations, with fewer than 10 per cent of registered charities in Scotland having more than 20 employees. Very often, those organisations are firmly rooted in their community and are reliant on the tireless generosity and passion of volunteers to deliver vital support for those who need it.

In my contribution to the debate on the social isolation and loneliness strategy last week, I mentioned that, in the context of the cost of living crisis, third sector organisations are being asked to deliver more with less resource. Although this is a technical bill, we need to recognise that there is a wider debate about the third sector as a vital national resource. The expertise of those in the sector is unrivalled, and the work that they do is invaluable.

As part of that wider review, the Government will want to consider the continuing conversation about long-term funding and to move beyond year-to-year funding for the third sector. It will also want to look at the availability of more core funding and at supporting representative bodies such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to drive forward a lot of the changes and to support charities in growing their capacity so that they can seamlessly move with those changes. Our third sector needs greater stability rather than being limited by continuous cycles of short-term funding and different interventions and regulation at different stages.

Indeed, during the consultation process on the bill, several third sector organisations highlighted that they were struggling to respond as they simply did not have the capacity to draft meaningful responses within the required timescales. That in itself tells the story of the current picture for many charities. Only a tiny fraction of the 25,000 registered charities in Scotland submitted responses. In those responses, questions were raised about the impact of the legislation. Such issues—for example, the creation of a register of trustees—have already been articulated in the debate. Many bodies, including the Faculty of Advocates, have highlighted that charities already struggle to recruit trustees with the requisite skills, passion and experience and who are prepared to give the necessary time commitment.

According to the bill, prospective trustees will be able to apply to OSCR to preserve their anonymity. Although that provision protects the accountability and transparency of charities, it is important to recognise that, for many people, it will create additional barriers to becoming trustees and engaging with charities. That is particularly the case for those who are going through a period of rehabilitation and rebuilding their lives after criminal convictions or prison sentences. We therefore need to be mindful of the balance between protecting charities, and the money that people donate to them, and giving everyone a fair crack of the whip.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I begin by welcoming Jenni Minto to her place as minister. This is the first occasion on which I have been across from her in the chamber in this context and, quite possibly, it is the last as, obviously, I am speaking as the former deputy convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—of course, I was referring to my change of shadow roles and not to the minister.

However, I am pleased to be speaking, to look back at my time on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and to follow on from colleagues on that committee in speaking about the bill.

The committee scrutinised the proposals carefully and thoughtfully. It was clear from all the evidence sessions that there is a consensus that a patient safety commissioner can play an important role in improving public confidence in the healthcare system and serving as a powerful advocate for patients. As my colleagues have articulated—most notably Paul Sweeney in his opening remarks—Scottish Labour supports the establishment of a patient safety commissioner to champion the rights of patients and defend their interests. However, as we have said, we want the bill to be as robust as possible and to go as far as possible to ensure that those interests are defended robustly.

It is, of course, a positive step that the Government is implementing a key recommendation of the Cumberlege review. As we have heard from members from across the chamber, in recent years we have witnessed too many scandals, often with fatal consequences, affecting too many families. The stark reality is that we cannot afford the cost—either the economic cost or, critically, the human cost—of unsafe care. It is estimated that, globally, unsafe care in health settings significantly contributes to more than 3 million deaths per year, which is clearly a sobering and significant figure. It is estimated that the financial cost of unsafe care here in Scotland is around £2 billion. In that respect, the importance of legislation is self-evident.

As I said, the crucial aspect is that the bill is well crafted and well implemented. As we have heard, pieces of well-intentioned legislation have often failed to have an impact on improving patient safety or patient care. We heard from my colleague Carol Mochan about the passing of the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019, which was hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would improve patient safety, as well as the safety of the workforce, by ensuring safe staffing levels on wards. However, four years on since that legislation was supported by members across the Parliament, there has been a failure to properly implement it and to meet the standards. I think that everyone is keen to raise that issue once more and to see progress in that space.

Alex Cole-Hamilton and Colin Smyth rightly raised the scandals that have impacted patients across the country, most notably at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Those harrowing stories are part of the reason why we need to ensure that the bill goes as far as possible. Scottish Labour has advocated for many years for better and more robust systems to be in place to ensure that the voices of the victims of poor care are at the heart of any inquiries into tragedies. Of course, most notable among those stories is that of Milly Main and the advocacy for Milly’s law to put families at the heart of such inquiries. We need the patient safety commissioner to take a strong role in that regard.

Evelyn Tweed spoke powerfully about the importance of the barriers that are experienced in healthcare, particularly by women, and she acknowledged that those barriers have to be broken down. I am sure that we all want the barriers to be broken down, which is why the recommendations of the committee that Evelyn Tweed referenced about following up with patients, giving them holistic support and representing the underrepresented in this space are vital.

Brian Whittle and Emma Harper brought to the Parliament’s attention the personal cost of the experiences that people have had across Scotland. People have experienced unthinkable pain, both physical and mental, and have had to live with that for many years before progressing towards an outcome. Those members’ contributions were particularly important in helping us to focus on what we want the patient safety commissioner to do. The system, at its heart, needs to be about transparency, accountability and, crucially, safety. I think that we all want those values to underpin the proposal.

As the bill moves to stage 2, it is critical that the Government works with members from across the chamber to iron out some of the issues that the committee raised at stage 1. I welcome what the minister said in her opening speech about the Government being in listening mode, which is really important.

The issues in the committee’s report that stood out to me have already been covered. We need to explore how healthcare staff can raise patient safety concerns freely, without fear of repercussions, with the commissioner. I appreciate what the minister said about working with officials to see what can be done in that regard.

We should provide greater clarity on the powers of the commissioner in relation to compelling private companies that provide devices and medicines to submit evidence during investigations. We should ensure that the commissioner has the teeth to push companies to do that.

Paul Sweeney mentioned investigations into individual cases. That is an important point that merits consideration. It is also important, as he said, to clarify the commissioner’s remit in relation to social care and how that remit will interact with the proposals for a national care service, because the significant safety issues relating to social care that came to light during the pandemic and throughout the period since then need to be addressed. There is an opportunity to do that through the bill.

I join others in thanking my former colleagues on the committee for all their work, and I thank the clerks and those who gave evidence. As I said, Scottish Labour will support the bill because it is evident that there is consensus on the need for a patient safety commissioner. All parties in the Parliament recognise that need. As the bill moves to its subsequent stages, it is critical that the Government gets it right and delivers, because patients have already waited too long and need a champion.

I want to follow up the conversation about the legislation and, indeed, on what can be done within devolved legislative competence on those issues. The Scottish Refugee Council has called on the Scottish Government to use its powers under section 9 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to look at creating an anti-trafficking protection process, essentially, that would bypass the NRM. To what extent do the witnesses consider that that would be useful in protecting our obligations under article 4 of the EHRC? I will start with Bronagh Andrew to get a sense of whether you want the Government to push that forward.

I will correct my acronym: for the record, it is ECHR—the European convention on human rights—not EHCR. I do that all the time, so apologies for that.

Thank you, Bronagh—that was helpful. Notwithstanding the challenges that the Illegal Migration Bill presents, what is your sense of engagement with ministers on that? Has work been done to look at a different referral mechanism?

Okay. You mentioned Police Scotland’s interest in protecting the most vulnerable. I will ask about your approach to supporting people. People are held in custody suites or in cells using the powers under immigration legislation. That practice is particularly concerning for people who are saying quite clearly that they are victims of human trafficking. In some cases, they have left a really dangerous situation and are then held in custody.

To what extent do you recognise that that practice is an additional barrier to supporting someone who has been a victim of human trafficking? Do you recognise that the Angiolini review identified that as being an additional barrier? Is there more that we can do to find alternative ways to process people?

I appreciate that Police Scotland will be limited in what it can say in respect of devolved competences, but as regards the practicalities, might you be able to say something about whether a different referral mechanism would be helpful to you? I just want to give you an opportunity to comment on that.

Okay. That would be useful.