Chamber and committees

Fergus Ewing is making a very important point related to wider regulation of charities. My inbox has been filled by members of sessions of churches across Scotland who are very concerned. Given that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will meet from 25 May, would the member recognise that there might be an opportunity for the minister to re-engage with the General Assembly and the general trustees of the Church of Scotland to find some way forward?

I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for your lavish generosity. I will attempt to justify it with my closing speech.

We have had an important debate this afternoon in which we have heard what I think is a broad consensus in Parliament for the general principles of the bill. As the cabinet secretary outlined in her opening speech, it is a technical bill and we are agreed on the need for it in order to tidy up charities legislation and to make it stronger, to ensure that the public have confidence in charities across Scotland and to ensure that Scotland is in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What we have heard, across the piece, is that in the later stages of the bill there will be a requirement for refinement of and clarity on a number of points that have been raised by members across the chamber.

Collette Stevenson in her new role as convener—to which I welcome her—made important points on behalf of the committee. She pointed out that the wider review that the cabinet secretary has committed to will require engagement with the third sector not just on these but on wider issues that it has raised with the committee. She made an excellent point about the need to start that engagement early and to ensure that the third sector is approached from the very beginning. Smaller charities should be included in that.

We have heard a lot today about charities that many members know from their parts of Scotland. It is important that they have a strong voice in everything that we do, because they are the people who make changes in communities.

The importance of those charities was highlighted again by Jeremy Balfour in his opening speech. He made an excellent point about good governance being crucial to the functioning of charities. However, like many others, he highlighted that greater support and stability are required for charities to ensure that they can meet their obligations and continue to serve their communities so well.

On the challenges that charities face as they serve communities, Douglas Lumsden made an important point about the challenge of recruiting trustees, particularly in rural communities. Many members represent rural communities and know that charitable organisations are often the lifeblood of small towns and villages and of everything that happens there. They can be long-standing historical institutions, but it can be hard in the modern context, particularly in smaller communities, to enthuse people about taking on the trustee role or dealing with the finances and operation of a charity.

We must keep our eyes open to that challenge and must ensure that we are not putting unnecessary barriers in place for people who might want to become trustees. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill is about striking a balance between transparency, so that there is public confidence, and ensuring that we do not make regulation overly cumbersome, which might put off people who would otherwise want to become engaged.

John Mason made some important points about that. Our exchange during his intervention was about trying to strike that important balance. He made important points about interim and temporary trustees. Charities might need a bit of bridging support; there are people who have professional expertise and might be willing to do that, but might not have the confidence or the legal knowledge to do so.

Mr Mason also made an important point about wider regulation of charities and the need for reporting. He asked whether we should look at how charities that have an income of less than £25,000 should report to OSCR and about the level of scrutiny of their accounts. I hope that we can look at some of those issues as part of our wider conversation.

The issue of communication was raised. I said in my opening speech that many charities had felt unable to contribute to the committee’s consultation because of a lack of capacity. Foysol Choudhury rightly also highlighted that many charities were just not aware that there was a consultation. I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy made the excellent point that communication about the changes for charities will be vital after the bill has cleared the parliamentary process, so that everyone knows what is expected of them and what they need to do. Parliament should look at communication and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

The Scottish Labour Party supports the principles of the bill. We all want charities in Scotland to be well governed and transparent and to be charities that people can trust. We want to ensure that people who donate to a charity can do so with confidence and that people who volunteer do so knowing that the charity is reputable.

The debate has brought up wider issues about the health of the third sector in Scotland. There are multiple challenges, not the least of which are recovery from the pandemic, cost of living pressures and the demand for services. There is also no long-term strategy to fund and support charities. Parliament has been talking for a long time about three-year funding cycles; we need to look at that in the round in order to ensure that we are supporting charities.

Fergus Ewing made good points about the wider issues affecting faith-based charities and churches. We cannot get away from the fact that the bill interacts with other pieces of legislation. We should look at that, because there is cross-party concern about the issues that Mr Ewing raised. I would be happy to have further conversation with him—as, I am sure, would others.

I might now be going over the score regarding the generosity of the Presiding Officer, and I do not want to fall foul of the chair.

In concluding, I say that there is a real willingness, certainly on this side of the chamber, to work with the Government to get the bill right so that it does what it sets out to do and so that we take with us people from across Scotland’s charity sector. We look forward to the wider work to which the cabinet secretary has committed.

We have heard again from the cabinet secretary that dignity, fairness and respect are the guiding principles of Social Security Scotland, just as we did when she spoke of the bill to create the agency in 2019. However, we know that the Government has failed to deliver. It has handed back social security powers, such as the administration of carers allowance, until 2025, leaving thousands of Scots at the mercy of the Tory-run Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, as we have just heard from Jeremy Balfour, there are serious issues around call handling and web chats, with 28,000 calls to Social Security Scotland involving people waiting more than an hour. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would recognise that that does not match the 2019 aspiration.

What has she done since coming into post to deal with the operational performance of Social Security Scotland to ensure that it looks and acts like the system that was originally promised?

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 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.

It would be helpful if Elaine Tomlinson could say something about that. I appreciate your point about working within the confines of the law, but how do we ensure that everyone has access to interpretation services, healthcare and welfare? Is it your view that that is happening across the piece now in Police Scotland? Perhaps Elaine might be able to say more.

I want to build on the point about ESOL provision, because it is important. Could Gayle Findlay comment on ESOL provision across Scotland? We obviously do not have an ESOL strategy any more, but it would be useful to understand COSLA’s position on who should be responsible for delivering ESOL services. It is fair to say that provision is patchy. I do not say that to anybody’s detriment; it is just that there is no concerted strategy.

I am grateful for that answer. With regard to record keeping and passing on information, I am particularly interested in the justification, if you like, for passing information to the Home Office straight away, even if someone says that they have been a victim of a serious crime such as human trafficking. Would it not be more appropriate to find a system whereby we pass that information to a solicitor, in the first instance, or that there is a discussion with a solicitor or a trusted non-governmental organisation, rather than going straight to the Home Office, which could, very quickly, result in a removal order coming through and that process kicking in?

Do you recognise that there are issues to do with information sharing? Police Scotland has previously said that that is about the safeguarding of victims but not a lot of people recognise that as the best way to protect people.