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 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.

I have one more question, convener, if I may. It is on a slightly different topic, but I want to ask it because Ms Long is here. As a regional member for West Scotland, I am particularly interested in the implementation in Inverclyde of the new Scots strategy, because declining population in certain communities is an issue there. Do you and the council see an opportunity to grow communities again by bringing in new families through the new Scots programmes? What work have you done on bringing communities together to understand the new diversity that might exist in a community that, perhaps, has not been as diverse as other places in Scotland?

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?