Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“We need a flexible migration system that meets the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom and works closely with the devolved Administrations. That is the best way to ensure that Scotland’s economy is bolstered with the workforce that it needs. I am pleased that the UK Labour Government is finally considering a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. My party was the first to call for such a scheme. Young people already have the chance to use similar schemes in many countries across the globe, so there is no reason at all why we should not expand such access to our European neighbours. It will offer amazing opportunities for generations to come. Let us be clear: the issue is not only about giving people the freedom to travel and experience life across Europe, although that in itself is valuable and powerful.”
“We lost freedom of movement and, with it, easy access to the people who kept our national health service going, worked in our care homes, picked our crops and powered our businesses. Only today, I stood outside the Parliament alongside social care workers campaigning for fair pay and conditions. Scotland’s care sector depends hugely on overseas workers. In fact, it relies on them—they are its backbone. Imposing thousands of pounds’ worth of fees will only make the crisis worse and push more providers to the brink. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster are calling for punitive Home Office visa fees, which were introduced by the previous Government, to be scrapped for care workers and NHS staff. The last thing that we need is more of a barrier to those who seek to come here to work in health and social care.”
“It has created jobs, filled vital gaps in our workforce and brought fresh perspectives, drive and innovation. These are not strangers; they are our neighbours. They are our colleagues, our friends, our lovers and our families. They are us. However, instead of valuing that, the aftermath of years of mismanagement by the previous Government in Westminster has left the UK’s immigration system in tatters. Public trust has been eroded. The issue is the battle line of our political discourse, and that is deeply regrettable. Brexit only made things worse. When the UK voted by a slim majority to leave the European Union, ties that matter deeply to Scotland and to all of these islands were broken.”
“Immigration is a fundamental part of Scotland’s story. It has shaped who we are and it continues to shape who we will become—from Irish immigrants in the 17th century to those from Italy and Poland during the industrial revolution and after the second world war; from those who came to us from India, Pakistan and Uganda in the 1960s and 1970s to those fleeing war in Ukraine today, who have found refuge and such welcome and new beginnings in Scottish homes the length and breadth of our community. Each wave of immigration has enriched our culture. It has strengthened our economy and contributed to a more diverse, dynamic and successful society, bringing new languages, traditions and ideas that are now woven into the fabric of Scotland.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I am also grateful for the tone that has been fostered by those on all sides of the chamber thus far. My remarks begin in large part where Michael Marra’s began: I, too, am a product of immigration. My mother came here in the 1960s to undertake an English degree and never left. Perhaps that is not an advert for immigration on some sides of the chamber, but I am proud of it nonetheless. All of us, whether we are in this Parliament or in Westminster, have a responsibility to speak up, clearly and confidently, in defence of the many benefits that immigration brings to our society. Too often, our political discourse shrinks from that responsibility and retreats in the face of rising hostility and negative press, instead of standing firm on what we know to be true.”
“I move amendment S6M-17906.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert: “believes that there is an important policy balance to be struck between welcoming those migrants who make significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural life of the UK, and reducing the numbers of illegal migrants who place added pressures on the welfare system and public services, and believes that the future of migration policy across the UK should reflect the specific needs of different sectors of the labour market.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to speak to and move amendment S6M- 17906.2. 15:44”
“Although I have some sympathy for the amendment that the Labour Party has lodged, I also have some worries about the white paper, just as I have about my party’s on-going discussions about migration. I am not convinced that we have the right balance between those people who want to come to this country and whom we want to be able to welcome, and those people who are here through illegal means. A big discussion needs to be had about that. The immigration system has to reward contribution and social integration, and any deportation system of illegal immigrants that we come up with must work. As yet, we are not there.”
“First, although I agree that it is a sectoral issue rather than a uniquely Scottish one, we always come to the point that if the UK Government does not take a different approach, we will have to talk about why it needs to be different for Scotland. Secondly, there is the question of illegal versus legal migration. We strongly feel that the reduction in the routes for legal migration—whether that is based on salary levels or otherwise—is not resolving the issue. Lots of countries around the world have a very relaxed approach to legal migration and therefore see very low levels of illegal migration. Liz Smith: That is a fair point to make. There is a broader picture about how well we can navigate not only a global situation but the situation in the UK.”
“I was very pleased to join that cross-party group, because I think that there is a case for post-study work visas. If Scotland is to attract the brightest and best— whether that is students or people in research and development and staff—we absolutely need to have a welcoming structure for the people who would like to come here. I remember that, just before some of the debates around the independence referendum, we were able to attract probably about 14 per cent of research and development grants because Scotland was leading the way. As I understand it from last week’s conference, that figure is now down to about 10.5 per cent. That is not a good direction in which to be going, so the case for post-study work visas is very strong. Kate Forbes: Liz Smith talked about this being a UK-wide issue.”
“Daniel Johnson: Liz Smith is making a really interesting contribution about some of the nuances in the labour market. Is there also a broader, global context, in which world population growth is slowing? We perhaps need to concentrate on how we manage that issue rather than try to compensate for it with migration, which will only ever be a short to medium-term exercise. Liz Smith: That is a very good point from Mr Johnson. I think that he is right that there is a global context to the issue, which is important. When I was elected to this Parliament in 2007, I was part of the cross-party group on post-study work visas—I think that people know of my passion about education, particularly higher education and the university sector.”
“I suggest that the debate should not be about Scotland against the rest of the UK but should be much more about different sectors across the UK. I do not like the fact that we often get into constitutional debate about the issue, when it has much more to do with the sectors. I know from speaking to my local community in Perthshire that we have people there who are some of the best workers—indeed, some Polish workers are seen by their employer as absolutely outstanding in the contribution that they make to agriculture. That is the case in my community but people in Norfolk or wherever will say exactly the same. We must be careful about how we play this, because I think that there is a— Daniel Johnson: Will the member take an intervention? Liz Smith: Will I get a little time back? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes.”
“That recruitment process is something that the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard a lot about when it visited Prestwick airport, and we need to take cognisance of that issue. Last Wednesday we had a really interesting debate about entrepreneurship and innovation. Kate Forbes, who was leading for the Government, was quite right to say that entrepreneurs and innovators are the catalysts for economic growth. We should acknowledge both and welcome the very positive contribution that many of those people who are not indigenous to Scotland make when it comes to entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, there are serious issues in relation to immigration policy, which is why I want to delve a bit deeper into the matter.”
“As I think that The Sunday Times pointed out at the weekend, we might be doing very well on attracting people from down south to Scotland, but there is an issue with regard to the fact that not so many people come to Scotland from elsewhere. That is in marked contrast to what is happening down south. With regard to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, I heard the Deputy First Minister’s little comment about the tax base. The issue is about the tax increase that we need in revenue terms. Yes, people might be taxpayers, but, if we listen to an awful lot of people in the business community, particularly people like Sandy Begbie—I know that that message has gone back loud and clear to the Scottish Government—we learn that there is a problem in relation to attracting middle to higher earners to Scotland.”
“We also have huge pressure on public services, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission set out last week; there are definitely challenges to a one-size-fits-all approach, which I will come back to; and there has definitely been a Brexit effect, which has changed the nature and the composition of the migrant population. More migrants now come from outside the EU—so it is a more diverse group, especially when it comes to languages and cultures. However, I also make the point, which I think that the Deputy First Minister referred to, that, in the past five years, the UK has seen record levels of inward migration from abroad. However, Scotland has not always been able to attract what we would see as our percentage share of that.”
“I also welcome Liz Smith’s tone in the debate, and I recognise what she said at the outset about racism and misinformation about the facts of immigration. Does she also recognise that, particularly in the media, the nuance about the need to attract skilled workers, particularly to rural communities, is often lost in the heat and the hate that goes with the anti-immigration rhetoric? Liz Smith: Yes, I absolutely recognise that. The media is partly responsible for some of that divisiveness. I come back to the Deputy First Minister’s point about homogeneity with regard to economic inactivity: she is quite right that there are lots of different aspects to economic inactivity, but we have worryingly high rates of it and very significant labour shortages in key sectors, such as agriculture, hospitality and care.”
“I want the Deputy First Minister to see not just the women who are sitting in the public gallery today but the five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven- year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds—the wee girls who suffered abuse at Fornethy. It is time that we did the right thing. It is time to restore their trust. It is time to show every survivor of child abuse that they are believed, they are valued and they will be heard. If there is no justice, there will be no peace. [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will just give a gentle reminder to those in the public gallery that this is a meeting happening in public rather than a public meeting, so I discourage them from participating, although I understand their sentiment. 13:00”
“However, Fornethy and countless other failures by the state expose the brutal truth that we are failing victims again and again, every single day. I began with the words of the Fornethy women. Let me end with some more: “It only takes one event, one day, to change your world view forever—and the lasting trauma that brings. Are we not worthy because we were abused only for a short period?” I say to the women who are in the public gallery today: you are worthy. You are owed a full and meaningful public apology. You deserve compensation. You deserve the truth. You deserve justice. I say to Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government that those women are not going anywhere. They are strong and determined. Platitudes and warm words will not cut it any more.”
“While we consider the Fornethy petition, we should acknowledge another one that is under the consideration of the petitions committee: petition PE1979. Once again, the Government has dismissed it. It dismisses the petition’s call for an independent national whistleblowing office for children and education services, for independent investigations into unresolved allegations and to close the gaps in the child abuse inquiry. Whistleblowers are ignored, victims are ignored and public bodies are protected—that is the reality of child protection in Scotland today. The tragic human cost of child abuse is incalculable—lost childhoods and lasting trauma. As a society, nothing should be more important than safeguarding our children.”
“They want to know why no one checked whether it was safe. They want to know why no one stopped the abuse year after year. The on-going public inquiry must get to the bottom of it but, let us be honest, it did not end with Fornethy. Even today, whistleblowers and victims are, too often, still met with silence when they raise serious child protection concerns. There is a culture of cover-up in public bodies, which are more focused on protecting reputations than on protecting children. There is a fundamental power imbalance: public bodies are marking their own homework, and have unlimited legal and financial resources that they unleash against the victims of abuse to defend the state against allegations.”
“Are we really going to pit one abuse survivor against another? Is the Parliament really going to ignore the unanimous recommendation of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which called for the redress scheme to be extended, when we all know that abuse is abuse? I know that the redress scheme is not the only thing that matters to those women and that many will never apply, but redress represents something—it represents recognition. The Government has chosen the redress scheme to be its formal acknowledgement of wrongdoing, its recognition of the lasting trauma and its acceptance that the state failed the victims of abuse. By denying Fornethy survivors meaningful access to the scheme, the state continues to fail them. The women want the truth. They want to know why they were sent to Fornethy in the first place.”
“In January 2023, the First Minister told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it was possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful under the redress scheme, but the Government subsequently told the women that their records had been destroyed and that there was no evidence that they were at Fornethy. That was until the redress scheme made it clear that personal testimony is evidence. However, now, the Government says that they still will not qualify for the scheme because their care was short term and involved parents. Those girls were sent to Fornethy by the state, not their parents. They were abused by staff who were employed by the state, and the state must take responsibility. Is the Government really saying to those women, “Your abuse was short term, so it doesn’t matter”?”
“In September, the leader of Glasgow City Council offered what was a half-hearted apology at the end of a meeting, in an item of any other business. The women found out through the media. Senior council officers and the council leader continue to refuse to meet them and continue to refuse to offer a proper meaningful public apology. Instead, they circle the wagons, cover up and prioritise protecting the council over taking responsibility for why their predecessor authority failed to protect those wee girls. Similarly, the Scottish Government has failed to take responsibility, putting barrier after barrier in the way of those women.”
“However, does Colin Smyth agree that they will never fully have closure until their victimhood is recognised, justice is properly meted out to them, and they are recognised not only here in this chamber but in the redress schemes that the Government has made available to survivors such as them? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for that intervention, Mr Smyth. Colin Smyth: I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for the support that he has given to the Fornethy survivors, including on that visit with the women to Fornethy, which was an incredibly humbling and powerful experience. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right that that was part of that closure—however, we now need Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to step up to the mat to really give those women closure.”
“Will Colin Smyth take an intervention? Colin Smyth: I am happy to take an intervention. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to Colin Smyth for giving way—particularly because, regrettably, I am required to attend the First Minister’s emergency summit on youth violence; otherwise, I would have contributed more fully to the debate. The survivors who are in the public gallery know the love and respect that I have for them, and that Colin Smyth and I will never leave their side as we complete this journey towards justice. Colin Smyth and I took the survivors on a trip to Fornethy two years ago. There was much closure on that trip, as we walked the grounds of what is now a derelict house.”
“It must match our ambition and give care workers the pay and recognition that they deserve. At Westminster, we are calling for an end to crippling Home Office visa fees that threaten to push services to the brink. Our message is simple: whether care workers grew up here or came here, they deserve fair pay, job security and respect. The Government needs to stop dragging its heels and act before the crisis deepens.”
“The NHS does not need more pilot schemes. It needs action and genuine change. It needs conversations—difficult conversations—and it needs innovation and reform. One aspect of the Government’s amendment that I agree with is the point that the UK’s decision to close the health and care worker visa route to adult social care is short sighted and deeply damaging and risks worsening an already acute staffing crisis in our NHS and social care workforce. However, let us be clear that the recruitment and retention crisis that we have in Scotland’s care sector has been years in the making and is entirely of the SNP’s design. It is driven by low pay, poor workforce planning and a Scottish Government that consistently fails to value those who are on the front lines. Here in Scotland, we can achieve change only if the Government chooses to act.”
“Patients are crying out for care, yet qualified clinicians are left on the sidelines because GP practice budgets are so stretched that they cannot reach for the luxury of sickness cover. That is not just mismanagement; it is a direct result of a Government that has failed to take responsibility for national workforce planning. The Government has pushed responsibility on to local boards without the long-term modelling tools that are needed to deliver. It is clear that the Government’s future medical workforce project is not working. There are issues with the Government’s 2018 contract that expected GPs to work on a multidisciplinary model, and the demand for GP appointments has gone up significantly since then. Neil Gray: Will Alex Cole-Hamilton take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am afraid that I must make progress.”
“That is not just a tragic waste of talent; it is an insult to those who are waiting for placements, but also to the staff and patients who desperately need their expertise on the front lines. What is the point in increasing training places without ensuring that jobs exist at the other end? There is no proper bridge between training and practice, and the few bridges that exist are now bottlenecked, leaving exhausted senior clinicians to oversee more trainees with yet fewer resources. I have spoken with experienced locum doctors in my constituency who have told me that they cannot find work in Edinburgh—our capital city— where demand for healthcare, including primary care, has never been higher. That is how broken the system is.”
“I am sure that I am not alone among members in this, but not a week goes by when I do not get a constituent visiting me or getting in touch to tell me the impact that the situation is having on them or someone they love. I turn to the workforce. We have more than 2,500 unfilled nursing and midwifery vacancies, but newly qualified nurses are still struggling to find work. How can that be? How can it be that, in this chamber, we passed legislation to ensure that our nurses should never go to a shift that is not safely staffed, yet none of them reports confidence in the safety of the shifts that they are asked to staff? We have resident doctors who are unable to get on to specialty training programmes despite investing years of study and service in our NHS.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate, although I am tired of saying that there is an NHS workforce crisis, as we do so repeatedly. It is a crisis, and that fact is self-evident to those who work in our NHS and those who rely on it. The crisis is plain to see in waiting times and hospital pressures and in the workforce that our system depends on. Let us be absolutely clear at the outset that the crisis is caused by years of complacency by the SNP Government, which has now been in power for almost two decades. One in six Scots is on a waiting list. People are forced to go private for healthcare, not as a choice but in desperation, and patients are waiting weeks just to get an appointment to see their GP.”
“We are also glad that, finally, the bill no longer contains the most damaging parts of the original plan, which would have centralised decision making away from the communities that understand how best to deliver care, particularly in remote and rural communities, and instead placed it in the hands of ministers. However, we must not let the bill pass without a reckoning. The SNP Government should apologise to care users, to care providers and to Scotland’s incredible care workforce. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 18:26”
“My party is prepared to support the bill that is before us, but let me be clear that it does not represent the transformational change of our care sector that we need to abate the crisis. We will support it because of the positive changes that it will make in recognising carers’ rights to breaks, strengthening advocacy and ensuring that loved ones can stay connected to people and homes through Anne’s law. I pay my personal tribute to Anne’s family, who are with us today. The bill will also improve information sharing and it offers better procurement routes for the third sector. Those are useful steps, but they are no substitute for the real reform that the sector desperately needs.”
“We introduced free personal care for the elderly, we enshrined the right to carers’ leave in employment law and we have just secured a change to let family carers earn more without losing the support that they depend on. My colleague at Westminster Sir Ed Davey has made care a cornerstone of our manifesto and has spoken bravely about his experiences as a carer. I am sure that many members will be familiar with his story. We also want to see a United Kingdom- wide care wage that is at least £2 above the minimum wage and removal of the national insurance hike on care providers. That is the vision for care that the sector and Scotland need. It is what carers deserve, and it is what my party— the Scottish Liberal Democrats—will keep fighting for.”
“The Scottish Liberal Democrats were the only party to oppose that flawed idea from the very first. We did so—and we did more than just oppose it—in budget negotiations this year. We took action to ensure that it was excised from the pages of this legislation, finally. We made it clear that we would not support any budget that contained a single penny on national care service spending, and we won, but, sadly, not before the SNP had squandered £30 million of the money—earmarked and identified to me by JP Marks all those years ago—that could have paid the salaries of 1,200 care workers for an entire year. In those budget negotiations, we secured millions more for front- line social care and fashioned new training pipelines for care workers through Scotland’s colleges. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have a proud record in this area.”
“The bill is not what it says on the tin, either—there is nothing about it that delivers needed and demonstrable reform. We might have very different visions of what reform the care sector needs, but this is none of them. Care workers are overstretched and undervalued. People who need care are waiting too long or going without altogether, and family carers, unpaid and unseen, are burning out because the system is simply not coping. That crisis demands attention, urgency and leadership, with real reform. Instead, what we have had from SNP ministers is confusion, waste, retreat and attempts at centralisation. Let us not forget that the bill began life as a national care service bill—a bureaucratic power grab to hoard control of social care in Edinburgh, rather than empowering those closest to the people who need it.”
“In my first days as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I was visited by John-Paul Marks, who at the time was permanent secretary of the Scottish civil service. He explained to me the very parlous funding outlook for the Scottish Government and that pretty much all budgets across all directorates would be contracting, save one, which was the increase in spending that was allocated to deliver the SNP’s flagship, election- winning promise of delivering a national care service. That was a promise that we had opposed from the outset, but, nevertheless, the SNP had won the election, and I understood why he was apportioning that extra money. What a waste. This week is national carers week, yet here we are, marking it with a piece of legislation that falls far short of what Scotland’s carers and those who they care for truly deserve.”
“We agree with asking the question; that is why we have committed to consulting and it is important that we do that with the sector before bringing forward the change. I therefore urge members not to support these amendments.”
“Will the minister say a bit more about the consultation? Will it be a consultation specifically on extending FOI law to the social care sector? When will it be concluded? When should we expect any particular changes to FOI law to be brought forward on the back of the consultation, should the Scottish Government agree to take this further? 15:15 Maree Todd: As I have stated, work has already commenced on engaging key stakeholders in our development of the approach to consultation. We have established a dedicated advisory group, which is actively taking forward that work. I think that I have been absolutely clear that the Government does not want to skip the step of consultation.”
“Maree Todd: The Government recognises that there is a gap. That is why we are consulting on it. That is why we are keen on consulting. We have stated our intent and we have committed to consult on the extension to the sector because we recognise that there is a gap. However, I do not think that we can skip the step of consultation. We are statutorily required by section 5 of the 2002 act to consult before exercising the order-making power to extend FOI law to organisations that were not previously covered. The consultation that is being developed therefore remains appropriate and essential in the Scottish Government’s view, and supporting Katy Clark’s amendments would remove the opportunity for the important process of consultation to continue. Mark Ruskell: The Greens are also sympathetic to this very limited extension of FOI law.”
“However, we must fully consider and consult affected stakeholders about the impact on organisations before making them subject to FOI law. For that reason, ministers are required by section 5 of the 2002 act to consult before exercising their order- making power to extend FOI law to organisations that were not previously covered. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Further to my exchange with Katy Clark, the Liberal Democrats are interested in supporting these amendments, largely because Katy Clark has eloquently identified a gap in the information that is provided, in particular to care residents and their relatives, in respect of private providers. It does not seem as though the Government is entirely closed off to the idea but would rather consult on further policy down the line. However, does the minister recognise that there is a gap right now?”
“We have already made a clear public commitment that we will consult on the extension of the 2002 act to most of the services to which these amendments relate. Indeed, work has already commenced to engage key stakeholders in developing the approach to consultation through the establishment of a dedicated advisory group, which is actively taking forward work on this area. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of access to information and the value of the statutory rights that are provided by the 2002 act. That is why we have committed to consult on the extension of those rights in this sector. Designation under the 2002 act brings a number of clear statutory obligations. Those obligations are intended to be proportionate.”
“I would say that it is a principle that, if it is the taxpayer who is paying for a service, the public should have that right to information. When the 2002 act was passed, it was always the intention that taxpayer-funded public services would be covered by FOI. After a 20-year delay, these amendments would guarantee that, within two years of royal assent, publicly funded care would be covered by FOI and the public would have more rights to know how their money was being spent. I move amendment 54. Maree Todd: I am grateful to Katy Clark for engaging with me since stage 2 on the issue of FOI extension. I welcome the greater clarity that she has provided regarding the services to which she seeks to extend FOI law. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government cannot support these amendments.”
“The impact of the amendments would be that individuals would be able to exercise and enforce FOI rights directly with service providers; the amendments would also strengthen legal clarity for the Scottish Information Commissioner and indeed for designated bodies and requesters. I hope to say a little bit more about the changing nature of the care sector later on in the debate, but I would argue that it is that changing nature that makes the amendments so important. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is likely to say that it is not opposed in principle to the amendments but that it wishes to undertake a consultation with the sector. These amendments would enable consultation with the sector on how FOI rights are extended to it, not on whether they should be extended.”
“We have a lack of transparency where services are provided by other types of organisation, such as a care home that is owned by a multinational. We know that many organisations have very vulnerable systems. Southern Cross Healthcare was perhaps the most noteworthy example of that. At the end of the day, it is the family and the person in care who suffer when such an organisation goes bust. I might have an opportunity to talk about that later when I speak to my amendments on tax transparency. My amendments in group 2 seek to address the transparency deficit by extending the requirements of the 2002 act to the care sector. Amendment 54 seeks to designate the relevant care homes as defined under the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Amendment 86 would require that the provisions would come into force two years after royal assent.”
“My amendments are about individual members of the public having a direct right to obtain information from an organisation that is providing a service that is paid for by the taxpayer. The important point in relation to private companies is that only the services that are paid for by the taxpayer would have to be compliant with freedom of information. Anything else that the organisation did—for example, the same care home could contain a place that was paid for privately and in a different way—would not be within the scope of freedom of information. However, the reality is that many care homes only have places that are funded by the taxpayer. During Covid, we saw that, where a care home was a local authority care home, information was provided to families, which was of great significance to them and gave them a great deal of comfort.”
“When public money is used for the delivery of care, councillors and council officers should ensure that they are satisfied that they are getting the best value for money and the best quality for money. Katy Clark’s amendments could set a precedent whereby any private provider that is in receipt of public funding would be subject to freedom of information. That might be where she wants to take this, but that is potentially a bigger debate than the one that we have in front of us. Katy Clark: The member seems to be arguing for contract compliance. Under freedom of information, it often happens that, when a local authority or the Scottish Government has to provide information that is requested, it will obtain that information from an organisation that it has contracted with.”
“Independent polling that the Scottish Information Commissioner undertook in 2024 confirmed that there is overwhelming public support for legal change, with 93 per cent believing that freedom of information should cover publicly funded services such as care homes. The essential point is that services that were originally provided in the private sector are now being provided by multinationals and care homes that are owned by offshore trusts. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to Katy Clark for giving way again. I am keen to tease this out. Surely the point that her amendments seek to address is really subject to due diligence by the local authorities that commission the care.”
“My proposals relate to the activities of private companies only in so far as they provide public services. The intention of the 2002 act was always that it would be possible to designate care providers in the private and non-profit-making sectors. However, we have seen a failure by Governments over more than 20 years to extend into those areas. It was always envisaged that such services that are provided and paid for by the state would be covered by freedom of information, but in recent years we have seen the outsourcing of services and, increasingly, services being provided by organisations that are not public authorities such as local authorities.”
“I am interested in Katy Clark’s amendments because Liberals care passionately about freedom of information. However, I am also anxious about blurring the lines between public and private accountability. We have freedom of information so that elected members and officials can be made to justify their decisions, but I think that it becomes a dichotomy when we start extending that to cover private companies, which have a right to conduct commercially sensitive business or to keep their profit margins private. That also almost misses the original intent of freedom of information, which was to have democratic accountability for local decision making. Katy Clark: Indeed. The intention of the 2002 act was to provide transparency about public services—that is, services that are paid for by the taxpayer.”
“There are sanitary towels and wet wipes on the beach at North Berwick. There is raw sewage in Gala. There is a beach covered in thick brown discharge in Dumfries and Galloway. The River Almond is making swimmers sick. Paddle boarders get covered in sewage in the River Tay. Today, on world environment day, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are publishing new research showing thousands of complaints from members of the public about sewage—sewage that is “absolutely honking” in Dingwall. Songs were written about Scotland being the “land of the shining river”. Does the First Minister mind that his Government’s own water company is dumping so much sewage into it?”