���˿���

Amendments 6 to 9, in my name, are intended to ensure that the commissioner can require relevant information from all relevant health bodies, and not only those that directly provide healthcare services to patients.

I am not able to support amendment 24. The regulation of medicines and medical devices is a reserved matter, and it is complex. I agree that it would be desirable to bring manufacturers and suppliers of medicines and medical devices into information-gathering provisions. I have asked my officials to look into that further, with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3, and to keep Paul Sweeney informed of progress. I therefore ask Paul Sweeney not to move amendment 24.

I support Carol Mochan’s amendment 25. Transparency and information sharing are crucial to the success of the commissioner’s role, and I do not think that the amendment would place an unreasonable burden on the commissioner, health boards, the Common Services Agency or NHS National Services Scotland.

Amendment 10 is a technical amendment that clarifies that an offence is committed recklessly or knowingly by a person. The amendment will bring the offence into line with offences in data protection legislation, recognising that information may contain sensitive personal data relating to healthcare treatment, which must be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

I cannot support amendments 26 and 27. As my predecessor Maree Todd said in her evidence to the committee, professional regulators such as the General Medical Council are not like the patient safety commissioner, taking action against individuals instead of promoting learning and improvement. I do not want, with this bill, to create a situation that might impede healthcare professionals’ willingness to be frank and open with the commissioner. It is that spirit of openness and co-operation that I feel will drive improvement, and I do not want to risk that.

I therefore urge members not to vote for amendments 24, 26 and 27, and I move amendment 6.

I do not support the amendments in this group. Amendments 12 and 20 would require the commissioner to set performance standards for their own office and then to report against those standards in their annual report. Although I agree entirely that there is a need for a robust system to monitor the commissioner’s performance, I am not convinced that those amendments add anything—apart from a burden of more paperwork—to what is already in the bill.

The bill already obliges the commissioner to produce a strategic plan of activity and to include a review of their activities in their annual report. It seems right to me that it is against that plan of activity, as well as against feedback from patients and from this committee, that the commissioner’s performance should be assessed. I find the idea that the commissioner should have to come up with a separate set of performance standards to be assessed against to be an odd one, which is likely only to muddy the waters regarding what the true expectations of the commissioner should be.

It seems to me that the time and resource that the commissioner would have to spend coming up with further standards and then consulting on them, as amendment 20 would require, would be better spent in getting on with the job of speaking up for patient safety. The bill as drafted already contains an element of annual reporting, but it must be remembered that some of the commissioner’s work will take time to achieve and might become apparent only outwith an annual reporting cycle.

Amendment 13 would require the committee to propose a debate in Parliament, about the commissioner’s annual report, every year. The committee is already free to propose a debate about the commissioner at any time. There is no requirement for legislation to create that right and using the law to tell Parliament, ourselves and our successors what to spend time on risks setting an unwelcome precedent. We should trust those who are elected to this place to know which issues matter to their constituents.

The same point can be made about amendment 32, which would require Parliament to arrange a review of the commissioner within three years. If dissatisfied with the commissioner, the committee would be able to carry out an investigation into their work and to report on that to Parliament. However, Parliament already has scope to review the commissioner’s work and role in whichever way we deem appropriate, which includes looking at the commissioner’s place in the pre-existing patient safety landscape. It seems to me that amendment 32 would serve only to tie the commissioner’s hands regarding the approach that they might want to take and might break the golden thread that Dr Gulhane spoke about. I therefore urge members not to agree to the amendments in the group.

I have lodged amendment 1 in response to calls from stakeholders, and an emphasis by the committee in its stage 1 report, on the need for a co-operative approach to patient safety. I whole-heartedly agree with that principle, and therefore I am keen to clarify, with this amendment, that we expect such a co-operative spirit to extend to all public authorities that have functions relating to healthcare, as well as to healthcare providers.

I do not feel able to support Carol Mochan’s amendment 28, because, although we are all hopeful and expectant that a spirit of collegiate working to improve patient safety will extend as far as possible, I am mindful that we cannot propose to Parliament an amendment that is outside its competence. We are just not able to impose a duty on the Patient Safety Commissioner for England.

I move amendment 1.

In respect of amendment 1, our aspiration for the patient safety commissioner is that they work in a co-operative way as much as possible. Although I am unable to support Carol Mochan’s amendment 28, due to its seeking to impose a duty that is outwith our competence, I do not disagree with the spirit in which it has, I think, been lodged. In the event that the member moves the amendment, though, I urge members not to support it, on account of the competence issues that it presents.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Although I have moved an amendment to drop section 4, recognising that there is existing legislative provision in the Equality Act 2010, I whole-heartedly encourage any steps by the commissioner to embrace the spirit of such communication in their public-facing activity.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—The planning process

Amendment 3 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Frequency of planning

Amendment 4 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 5 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

I am not able to support the amendment. The committee, in its stage 1 report, called on the Government to confirm that the commissioner will be able to address matters arising at the intersection of health and social care. I am happy to confirm on the record today that the commissioner’s role is about safety in healthcare, and there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the commissioner from dealing with healthcare that is provided in a social care context or any other context.

I hope that Paul Sweeney will accept that confirmation and will not press amendment 33, which, rather than clarifying matters, might create some doubt about whether the bill’s reference to “health care” includes healthcare that is provided in contexts other than social care. I therefore ask Paul Sweeney not to press amendment 33.

First, I thank the convener and the committee for inviting me along and for recognising the quite dramatic experiences that women have had as a result of transvaginal mesh surgery.

It is clear that, when we started setting up the surgery system for women who have been impacted, we wanted to design the processes with those women in mind and ensure that we did the right thing for them. There have been lots of discussions and surveys with women who have been impacted to find out how they feel the service should operate. Taking that learning on board has been incredibly important.

There is some advice on the NHS Inform website, but creating pamphlet literature to support women is incredibly important. We have listened to the women in order to ensure that it contains the right information, whether it is about the pathways for the referral system in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde service or the independent service.

I am pleased that we have listened to the women and are able to provide them with the information that they have highlighted is needed.

I am afraid that I cannot, but Greig Chalmers might be able to.

NSS has been sending out information to health boards, each of which has an individual who has been tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that there is an understanding of the complex mesh service in their health board area.

I refer the member to my earlier answer about the responsible officers in each health board, who have direct contact with NSS and the complex mesh surgical service.