Chamber and committees

Thanks. Alex, do you have any thoughts on that question?

Yes.

You said that most of the public authorities and bodies say that they operate in a world of transparency, so why do users often have quite a different view and feel that exemptions are used as a default in order to withhold information? They look at it a bit sceptically.

Do you think that the proposal might have an impact with regard to the interpretation of the qualified exemptions under FOISA?

I am pleased to speak in the debate on strengthening the effectiveness of our Parliament’s committees. I joined the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee right at the beginning of the inquiry. There was a bit of shoogling of chairs and stuff, but I remember hearing most of the evidence.

The report goes right to the heart of how we serve the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of the legislative process, and hard-working Scots deserve a Parliament that examines evidence and legislation carefully. When the Parliament was created, the committees were meant to be its engine room. They were meant to be where legislation was tested, where evidence was properly examined and where the voices of the public could be heard. Those principles are as important now as they were 25 years ago, but I think that we can all acknowledge that they have all been stretched thin in recent parliamentary sessions.

Too many bills have been rushed—we are certainly feeling the pain of that now—and too many important details have slipped through the net. Too often, the Parliament has been asked to sign off on legislation that was simply not ready. That is not what good government looks like and it is not what the people we represent expect from us. Hard-working Scots do not want politics for its own sake. They want us to be competent at what we do and they want decisions that are thought through, not thrown together to meet a deadline or make a headline. That means that our committees must be able to do their job properly.

The committee’s report sets out sensible, practical recommendations that would help us to get there. Reducing committee sizes, for example, from 15 members to around seven would make a difference. Smaller committees can get into detail and have some real discussions, rather than just managing speaking lists. Having been the convener of a large committee, I understand the pressures that members felt when I had to cut them short and not allow them to follow a train of thought that might uncover a nugget of important evidence.

The report also highlights the problem of constant churn, as we heard from Mr Carlaw and Mr Leonard. Members are moved on just as they start to understand their brief. However, to counter Mr Leonard’s comments about the lack of gender equality on his committee, I note that when some female members from the Conservatives moved on, some people stayed put, so positions could not be changed. That also contributes to the inability to get a woman into the room. The lack of continuity makes it harder to build expertise and develop the kind of trust in cross-party working that committees need to function well. If we want better scrutiny, we need more stability.

I welcome the discussion about elected conveners. The Conservatives’ submission stated that we do not believe that elected conveners alone will improve the situation in Parliament unless they are accompanied by wider reforms. We welcome the investigation into how that could move forward. When I was a convener, none of my powers or influence in that role was hindered by the fact that I was not elected to be there.

Our submission also raised practical concerns about the approach to electing conveners, which links to the use of the d’Hondt method and questions about how to deal with in-session vacancies. A lot of the churn happens when members from the governing party find themselves in ministerial roles. We find that that contributes significantly to churn.

Letting Parliament choose who leads a committee could strengthen a committee’s independence and improve accountability, but I agree with the committee’s view that that should not come with extra pay. My position is that, at a time when public finances are stretched, that would send the wrong message, because leadership is about responsibility, not necessarily remuneration. However, being convener was a lot of work and more effort than anyone can realise until they are in that role.

It is also clear that time is one of the biggest barriers to proper scrutiny, and we all feel that pressure. Committee members are juggling legislation, inquiries and constituency work, and there are just not enough hours in a week, especially if the committee sits on a Thursday. Allowing committees to meet while the chamber is sitting or to use Monday afternoons and Friday mornings for evidence sessions makes sense, because, after all, it is about giving committees the space that they need to do the job well.

My party made an important suggestion about committee witnesses. We suggested that they should have to declare where their funding comes from, including the amount of public funding, to further aid transparency about the potential influence of the Scottish Government.

The idea of committees reviewing their own performance each year is a good one. In any other workplace, teams look back on what they have achieved, what worked, what did not work well and how they might change their approach going forward. There is no reason why Parliament should not do the same. That is how we keep improving and making things better.

I referred to gender balance. I support the principle that our committees should reflect the diversity of the Parliament and of Scotland, but we must be careful not to turn that into a tick-box exercise where the women have to take on an extra workload just to fulfil the criteria. I know that the female parliamentarians who are on the gender-sensitive audit advisory group have made that point clear.

What matters most is that committees are made up of people who have the right experience, knowledge and commitment to hold the Government to account. They should also be interested in the topic, because then we would get genuine engagement. Let us aim for balance, while keeping a focus on merit and effectiveness.

The report gives us a clear route to better balance. The Scottish Parliament’s committees are an essential part of our legislative process, but scrutiny could be improved. Let us make sure that we do not have poor legislation that is rushed through in this session; we really need to get into the detail. We need to let our committees be more effective, so that our scrutiny is more meaningful and our Parliament is much more accountable to the people it serves.

The plan offers little on the proposals and on how they will impact motorists. That will alarm car users at a time when the latest RAC report for 2025 shows that the cost of motoring is the top concern for UK motorists, whether they are driving an EV or a car with an internal combustion engine. The biggest challenge is the inequality in the cost of charging; it costs 9p per kilowatt hour at home and 81.2p per kilowatt hour when using public charging. The draft plan does nothing to address that inequality. I have not done speed reading, so, cabinet secretary, will you guarantee that hard-pressed motorists will not face any additional costs because of the plan? What reassurance can you give to motorists that their concerns will be listened to?

It was “three to five”, as in a dash—not the number two, but the letters T and O. You had the choice of three, four or five.

Ninewells hospital in Dundee, Princess royal maternity hospital in Glasgow, Wishaw general hospital in Wishaw, Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy and Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock have all been downgraded under these plans. At least 22,100 people across Scotland have signed a petition to the Scottish Parliament protesting the plans, but the SNP does not listen.

I could continue to list SNP failures across the country, but I want to focus on NHS Lothian in my region. It has been well over a year since an employee at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh blew the whistle about conditions in the maternity unit there, and nearly a year since the subsequent investigation revealed staff shortages and a toxic management culture. In August 2024, new mother Louise Williamson spoke out about her horrific labour, when she was repeatedly ignored. In December, NHS Lothian said that action had been taken.

The report that was uncovered by the BBC last December upheld, or partially upheld, 17 concerns about safety, and NHS Lothian claimed that work was under way to improve patient safety and the working environment and culture. On 20 June this year, I was among a group of MSPs and MPs who were told in a health authority briefing that the culture was being fixed. However, three days later, there was an unannounced inspection at the unit by HIS, which revealed how much work was still needed.

The depth of the problems that were revealed in the BBC investigation last year—mums and newborn babies coming to harm because of the poor culture and staffing situation in the unit—was such that an instantaneous reversal was improbable. However, the reality is that it has taken an unannounced inspection to confirm that nothing has changed. After many reassurances that the issues were in hand and would improve, I was shocked by the damning inspection into maternity services at the royal infirmary. We now know from the publication of the HIS report last week that it is still in the grip of a crisis. That does not fully explain the “Everything is in hand” message that I was given in June, nor does it give me any faith that the assurances that were given in the wake of the revelations can be trusted.

HIS’s unannounced inspection of the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh revealed a culture of mistrust and staffing shortages that led to delays in the induction of labour process of up to 29 hours. The inspectors also found frustration with staffing levels, which presented a safety risk. Staff were overwhelmed, unsupported and not listened to. There was a reluctance to submit incident reports, and staff described a culture of mistrust.

Following the HIS inspections report last week, I asked the Scottish Government about public confidence in NHS Lothian and delivering the needed changes, because women deserve to know that their maternity services are safe, but NHS Lothian told MSPs last week that those issues would take time to resolve. Do we have time for that?

Professor Hiscox said that 72 additional midwives will be working by the end of the year, with 30 in position to meet basic legal requirements. That is a staggering admission of previous failures, and it exposes how much inequality there is in women’s health provision, because it is hard to imagine any other service being allowed to deteriorate in that way. It should never have got to the situation where undercover investigations and inspections were needed.

The health secretary, Mr Gray, has rightly put NHS Lothian’s maternity services into special measures, and I thank him for that critical intervention. However, what confidence can we offer our constituents that they will see real, tangible changes and improvements in safety?

The BBC’s “Disclosure” programme was a heart-wrenching watch. One woman described how she was made to feel like a nuisance by the staff in her west coast maternity unit. Our maternity services must put families first and provide compassionate and empathetic care and support. They must have safe staffing levels, with staff being valued and given every opportunity to deliver the best care. After all, as I know, having worked in healthcare for nearly 30 years before I was in my current role, that is why midwives enter the profession.

Will the member take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to determine whether there could be any unintended consequences. (S6O-05090)

It is a fact that there are huge inequalities when it comes to women’s health. Today, we are considering the failings of one critical element in women’s health—the state of our maternity services in Scotland. The failings in our maternity services have not happened overnight. They are a symptom of years of mismanagement, neglect and lack of investment.

The NHS in Scotland has been under SNP management for circa 20 years, and it is a grim fact that maternity services continue to fail women and families across Scotland. Like many others, I believe that its plans to cut the number of neonatal intensive care units are dangerous. Women in rural areas are already forced to travel long distances to give birth, thanks to the downgrading of local maternity units across Scotland. Journeys that I have made on numerous occasions in my life before coming to Parliament—from Raigmore hospital to Caithness general hospital, or from Dr Gray’s hospital to Aberdeen royal infirmary—are challenging to drive at the best of times, never mind when an expectant father is driving his pregnant partner, with all the pressure that that entails, yet the SNP plans to cut the number of neonatal intensive care units from eight to three. Why three and not five? That would force families to travel to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen in order to seek treatment for the most pre-term and most sick babies.