Official Report 409KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Neil Gray on the Scottish hospitals inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
18:11
I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament in response to the motion that was passed on 28 January 2026.
Before turning to the detail, I again recognise the profound distress experienced by patients and grieving families and by staff who have dedicated their careers to caring for others. For many, the recent inquiry hearings looking into the evidence relating to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital have reopened long-standing and deeply painful wounds. My thoughts remain with all those affected.
Let me be clear: when families or staff raise concerns, they must be heard; when problems are identified, they must be investigated; and when systems fail, there must be accountability, but that accountability must be based on due process and evidence. That is precisely why the Scottish hospitals inquiry was established: to interrogate decisions taken and decision-making processes, in order to assess responsibility, wherever it lies, and to shine a light where answers were lacking. Its independence from ministers, from this Parliament and from national health service boards is fundamental. It ensures that the truth can be uncovered without interference or political motivation.
The evidence before the inquiry is extensive. While it is for Lord Brodie to draw his own conclusions, it is also important to clarify some of the assertions made in recent days in the media and by members of this Parliament. I recognise the strength of feeling, but we must be led by evidence, and I am pleased to put on record some clarifying points.
First, as is a matter of public record before the inquiry, the Scottish Government was informed of water contamination issues at the QEUH only on 1 March 2018. The hospital infection incident assessment tool—or HIIAT—red alerts received by the Government prior to 2018 and referenced by members of this Parliament and by the media over the weekend did not suggest that there were wider problems with the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Indeed, that evidence is already before the inquiry, and HIIAT alerts can be assessed as red for a range of reasons, including severity of illness and impact on service delivery, and are not necessarily an indication of a wider problem.
Secondly, on the point about pressure, the evidence before the Scottish hospitals inquiry is unequivocal in demonstrating that there was no political pressure applied by Scottish ministers to open the hospital prematurely. Counsel to the inquiry made that clear during the final hearing, and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has confirmed that no external pressure was applied. Importantly, it is a clear matter of public record that the Government took steps to pause the opening of the Royal hospital for children as soon as matters of safety were brought to our attention.
The motion that was passed last week suggests that the inquiry should examine political decision making. However, under the Inquiries Act 2005, it is for the chair—not ministers, and not MSPs—to determine what evidence is relevant. Any attempt by Government to direct an inquiry would compromise the independent scrutiny that families fought to secure and that is enshrined in legislation. If there was any attempt to do so, we would rightly be held to account by this Parliament. That is why we could not support the motion as it was drafted. Nevertheless, the Government respects the will of Parliament and I will, therefore, set out the measures that are being taken to respond to last week’s motion.
On the important element of transparency, the Government has already provided extensive material on ministerial decision making—submissions, minutes, Cabinet papers and correspondence—and ministers and officials have given evidence under oath. If the inquiry seeks further documentation, it will be provided. That commitment is unequivocal.
The motion also calls for the immediate disclosure and preservation of communications. I will place on the record the comprehensive steps that have already been taken. Under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005, all relevant parties must not destroy, alter or conceal documents. That duty applies from the start of an inquiry, not only when a written notice is issued. Since 2021 and throughout the inquiry, the Scottish Government has responded to a wide range of statutory information requests. Officials working with the Scottish Government’s knowledge and information management division conducted deep searches across corporate and non-corporate systems, identifying around 1 million documents, all preserved in their original locations. Every single formal submission to the inquiry has included an explicit confirmation that we have complied with our overarching obligations under the law.
I can therefore say with confidence that all relevant material has been preserved and provided to Lord Brodie. As the First Minister has stated, and as I have also confirmed, if Lord Brodie requires any further material, we will, of course, make that available to the inquiry. The Government’s duty of co-operation is absolute and on-going.
The Scottish Government has also fully complied with requests from Police Scotland to have information shared as part of its independent and on-going investigations into deaths at the QEUH campus.
We remain committed to fully supporting both of those processes by making available all records and access to relevant persons, where necessary, to address specific lines of inquiry.
My officials are now examining how the documents that are referred to in the motion that was voted on by Parliament can be released safely and lawfully, and I will update Parliament in due course. However, let me also be clear in stating that this Government will not risk the integrity of the independent inquiry or seek to interfere in its work or that of the Crown Office purely to satisfy the political appetite of some members in the chamber. At the heart of this matter are families who deserve the truth, and that will be delivered by Lord Brodie’s inquiry and the Crown Office investigation. I will not interfere with that process.
Turning to the Greens’ amendment, which the Government supported, it is important that Parliament is guided by the independent evidence that is now available. Recent assessments provide clear reassurance about the safety systems that are currently in place at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. As part of the hospitals inquiry, Lord Brodie commissioned a series of expert reports and audits from Andrew Poplett, who is an independent specialist in healthcare water and ventilation systems. In his expert evaluation, Mr Poplett concluded that the hospital’s current management of its water systems is suitable and safe. Giving evidence to the inquiry in September 2025, he stated that, while there had been historic concerns, the system is “currently extremely well managed”, reflecting what he described as “significant improvement”. He noted that the facilities team is exceeding standard guidance and adopting a proactive and preventative approach that prioritises patient safety and resilience.
Ventilation governance has been subject to equally rigorous scrutiny. In March last year, Healthcare Improvement Scotland was asked by me to review progress made by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in addressing requirements arising from its June 2022 inspection. Healthcare Improvement Scotland reported that the original inspection covered more elements of the healthcare associated infection standards than had been covered in any other single inspection, underlining the depth of that inspection. Healthcare Improvement Scotland further confirmed that the subsequent action plan showed that all four requirements had been completed. Experts to the inquiry have since advised that governance arrangements for both water and ventilation systems are now optimal. That independent judgment is an important marker of the progress that has been made and of the seriousness with which patient safety is now embedded in day-to-day operations.
There is also new leadership at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and I have absolute confidence in the leadership of the board and the chief executive and their ability to ensure that there is the cultural change that is needed in Glasgow.
While ministers are assured of the safety of the hospital, we recognise the need to boost public confidence, given the significant political and media scrutiny in recent days. Therefore, in light of the amendment from the Greens, which was passed, I confirm today the creation of a new safety and public confidence oversight group. This group will be co-chaired by the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the eminent Professor Lewis Ritchie, who, Parliament will know, has overseen a number of reviews and reports over the years. Professor Ritchie’s input will provide relevant independent scrutiny, and the group will report to the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board and the Scottish Government.
The group will be broad and inclusive and will involve active engagement with patients, families, the wider public, staff, whistleblowers and other key stakeholders. The group will also make use of external independent scrutiny by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the NHS Scotland assure service. The group will cover environment and facilities compliance and assurance; leadership and organisational development; public and political confidence and engagement; and implementation of the issues, findings and future recommendations of the Scottish hospitals inquiry. Importantly, it will not interfere with the work of Lord Brodie in the inquiry. He must be given the space and time to review all evidence, free from political influence.
I also confirm that I will write to members across the chamber to offer an opportunity to meet me and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss the remit of the group.
This work sits alongside Scotland’s wider, long-standing national approach to improvement—the Scottish patient safety programme, which was launched in 2008 as the first national initiative of its kind and which continues to deliver safer care and better outcomes.
Ensuring patient safety also requires creating an environment where staff can speak up without fear. Let me state this as clearly as possible: when staff raise concerns—often in very demanding and distressing circumstances—they must be protected and their concerns must be taken seriously. I fully support that principle, and I have made that clear on the record repeatedly.
Effective whistleblowing systems are essential to ensuring that any concerns that are raised are followed by proper action. Last week, I met with the Patient Safety Commissioner, and tomorrow I will meet with the national whistleblowing officer. These meetings are to discuss the issues that matter and to make my support for both roles absolutely clear.
The inquiry is now in its final stages and it is vital that we give Lord Brodie the time and space that he requires to write his final report. Families and patients who have waited so long deserve a report that is thorough, fair and grounded entirely in evidence. When that report is published, the Scottish Government will respond with the seriousness and transparency that the public rightly expects—taking whatever action is necessary to restore confidence, strengthen safety systems and ensure that lessons lead to real and lasting improvements.
I know the intense interest in this matter and I am happy to take any questions that members have.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
This is about the deaths of cancer victims as young as 10, whose families were lied to, gaslit and made to wait for more than a decade for the truth to be forced out in the most sleekit way possible. Rightly, the people of Scotland feel disgusted by the callous nature of the cover-up. The very board that threatened and silenced whistleblowers is now being put in charge of the so-called oversight group. Basically, the cabinet secretary is asking an arsonist to investigate why the house burned down. That is exactly how to silence whistleblowers and intimidate them from coming forward.
Fourteen red and amber alerts were issued about serious infection outbreaks at the Queen Elizabeth hospital between 2015 and 2018, and the former Scottish National Party health secretary Alex Neil said that he was informed about alerts when he was in office between 2012 and 2014, yet Neil Gray has just told us that the Government did not know about the infections until 2018. When Alex Neil said that ministers were told but went on to do nothing, he was right, was he not? He said:
“At best, it is negligence, at worst it is a criminal conspiracy – either one caused death and avoidable suffering.”
NHS infection expert Annette Rankin said that SNP health secretaries had been uninterested in the infection outbreak alerts. Why did successive SNP cabinet secretaries ignore those alerts? Every day brings new and horrific revelations that ministers cannot run away from.
As Nicola Sturgeon’s career was rising, standards at the Queen Elizabeth hospital were falling. She was health minister during construction and First Minister during the scandal. Will the cabinet secretary ask the former First Minister to make a personal statement on what happened on her watch?
Finally, in 2015, Shona Robison categorically promised this Parliament that an independent safety audit would be completed before the hospital opened. That, I believe, never happened, with catastrophic results. Has an independent safety audit throughout the hospital finally been implemented—yes or no?
Dr Gulhane raises a number of points. First, I reiterate that patients must be at the heart of the process. The families, to whom I pay tribute, must get the answers that they are seeking, and that will come through the public inquiry that this Government commissioned being allowed to conclude its work and report. I am confident that Lord Brodie will do that, and I ask that he is given the space to do that.
As I set out in my statement, those families will also be involved in the oversight group, the independence of which is confirmed by the co-chairing of Sir Lewis Ritchie, whose reputation everybody will be aware of. The group will also report to Government.
There is also new leadership in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, who—as I said in my statement—I have full confidence in, in relation to their responding to the issues of culture that need to be responded to.
In terms of what we knew as a Government and when, the evidence before the inquiry clearly shows that the Scottish Government was made aware of a water contamination issue at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital only in March 2018. That is a matter of record from the public inquiry. [Interruption.]
With regard to the current situation, I have set out my confidence in the safety of the hospital. I also sent in Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out an inspection to look at the whole hospital and its systems. I set that out in detail in my statement in March of last year.
However, I recognise the need to provide greater confidence to colleagues here, as well as to patients, families and the wider public. That is why we have established the oversight group with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
It has been seven years. For seven years, families, staff and I have been raising concerns about the Queen Elizabeth hospital, and, for seven years, Scottish National Party ministers told us that there was nothing to see. We have had seven years of dither, denial, lies, gaslighting and bullying—that is the context that the health secretary ignores today.
Families have got to where they are today because they fought the system—a system that protected reputations rather than patients.
Let me tell the health secretary this: nobody believes him when he says that there were no warnings of issues until March 2018, and nobody believes him when he says that pressure was not applied. They will be found out.
Although I welcome the new oversight group, the truth is that we have been here before. As I said last week, on current issues, I will not be satisfied until the brave doctors who exposed the truth are satisfied. If the health secretary believes in honesty and transparency, and if he is to have a shred of credibility in his job, he needs to answer the basic questions that he could not answer last week. Can he now answer these questions? Has the hospital been validated: every ward and every unit? Has that report been shared with those three infection control doctors? Has it been independently verified, and will he publish the reports—yes or no?
I recognise the time that it has taken to get to this point.
On transparency, the public inquiry was established by Jeane Freeman in order to get to the answers that Mr Sarwar and the families are asking for. I recognise the time that it has taken and I recognise that the process is still to conclude, but that is the route through which we will get answers and get to the independent truth, which is why I believe that it should be allowed to run its course.
Mr Sarwar does not need to believe me regarding the issues that we are talking about, either in terms of what the Government knew when or whether there was political influence. Those are matters of public record that have been led in evidence before the public inquiry. That is why I can say those things, as I have, because I am quoting evidence that has come through from the public inquiry.
The public inquiry has also heard about the validation of the hospital. That is a matter of public record, which Anas Sarwar will recognise and understand. I do not wish to second guess the public inquiry’s conclusions.
However, I recognise the questions that have been raised by Mr Sarwar and others about the safety of the hospital now. That is why I sent Healthcare Improvement Scotland into Queen Elizabeth university hospital last year to get assurances. We have set up the independent oversight group to look at all those issues so that the public, Mr Sarwar, families and others—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
—can get assurance on the current safety of the hospital, which, I am clear, is safe.
Lord Brodie will reach his own conclusions, but will the cabinet secretary confirm whether it is the Scottish Government’s intention to implement any and all recommendations that Lord Brodie may make?
Absolutely—I have already committed to fully considering all parts of Lord Brodie’s final report and, in particular, the recommendations that are made whenever Lord Brodie makes them. We owe it to the families and patients who have been impacted to effect real and meaningful change, and we will fully and transparently implement any recommendations that Lord Brodie makes to the Scottish Government.
I will not ask the question that I was going to ask, because the bottom line is that the safety of patients is paramount. I am really concerned, cabinet secretary, that you cannot categorically tell us—
Always speak through the chair, please.
—that the hospital is safe and that an audit has been done to ensure safety for the patients and staff who walk through its doors. Has an audit been done? Is the hospital safe?
I can say categorically that the hospital is safe. I have set out that the evidence that has been led to the public inquiry is a matter of public record. I will not second guess the conclusions of the public inquiry. However, along with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, we have set up an oversight group with an independent co-chair in Sir Lewis Ritchie in order to provide independent oversight and assurance as to the hospital’s safety. I can confirm that I am confident that the hospital is absolutely safe. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
As the cabinet secretary said, there are patients and families at the heart of the issues at Queen Elizabeth university hospital who deserve the truth and answers to their questions. It is right that the Scottish Government set up an independent inquiry, and it is important that Lord Brodie be given space and time as an independent chair to reach his conclusions.
With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary set out how legislation, including the Inquiries Act 2005, protects Lord Brodie’s important right to investigate free from any political interference?
The Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, was further strengthened by this Parliament’s passing of the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007. Those pieces of legislation put in place a range of powers that are available to any public inquiry that is established in Scotland. Those wide-ranging powers, which include powers to compel witnesses and the production of all relevant information, are extensive and enshrine the independence of public inquiries, which ensures that they are protected from any undue influence.
It is right that we allow Lord Brodie the space and time to deliberate fully on all the evidence that is before the inquiry, and we look forward to responding to those findings in due course.
I find myself having to ask the same question as other members. Families deserve to know this: has every ward and every area been audited and validated as safe to be used today?
As I have said, what has been disclosed before the inquiry is a matter of public record. I will not second guess the conclusions of the inquiry. Improvements to the ventilation systems have been made where practicable, and the inquiry’s experts have given evidence that governance of the water and ventilation systems is now optimal. Robust air testing, reporting mechanisms, cleaning regimes and infection management are in place.
Despite my assurances that the hospital is safe—on which I am clear—I am seeking to give additional assurance to Parliament, Mr Sarwar and all colleagues as to the current safety of the hospital. That is why we are setting up the co-chaired independent oversight group to provide that assurance to the public.
Safety is of paramount importance to everyone who uses the facilities; it is vital that the public know that the sites that they are attending for their appointments and treatments are safe. Will the cabinet secretary set out how ministers are assured of the current safety measures that are in place at the QEUH?
The inquiry’s expert, Andrew Poplett, reported in 2025 that the water system management is now “extremely well managed” with “significant improvement” made. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde continues to monitor safety rigorously and must ensure that the hospital remains safe while the inquiry is on-going. No information through our robust governance arrangements has indicated that the hospital is unsafe.
In advance of publication of the inquiry’s findings, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has been working with the Scottish Government and plans to take additional immediate steps to ensure that there is public and political confidence in the safety of facilities and the environment in which services are delivered within the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the Royal hospital for children.
Beyond that, I have also announced today the creation of the safety and public confidence oversight group, which will actively engage with all parties and will be co-chaired by Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie, who I am confident will provide robust and independent scrutiny of its work.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The creation of the safety and public confidence oversight group is a welcome development, but will the cabinet secretary provide more detail about the group’s membership? He mentioned that there will be active engagement with patients, families, the wider public, staff and whistleblowers, but will he confirm whether there will be patient and staff representatives on the group?
As I set out in my statement, such involvement in that area would be welcome. I am happy to set out in writing—I plan to write to all Opposition spokespeople—the details of that and how potential representatives can interact with me and with the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde as to the workings of the group. I am clear that it is a route to provide greater confidence for the public, and for members of this Parliament and others, as to the current safety of the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am confident of that, but I recognise that there needs to be greater assurance provided.
We have heard Anas Sarwar, Brian Whittle and Carol Mochan all ask the same question about the validation of the safety of the wards and the hospital water supply. It is a yes-or-no answer, yet we have all heard from the cabinet secretary the same circuitous, rambling answer, leaning into the outcome of a public inquiry that might not report for months.
I will therefore ask the question in a different way. The cabinet secretary told Parliament that he instructed Healthcare Improvement Scotland to validate those wards last year. What did it tell him?
As I set out in my statement, Healthcare Improvement Scotland responded that there has been significant progress made—
Are they safe?
Yes, they are safe—they are safe.
Let us not be shouting at one another.
HIS set out clearly that there is significant progress being made, in the management of the water and ventilation systems, as to the current safety of the hospital, which should give confidence to others.
I wished for that assurance in March last year, which is why I sent Healthcare Improvement Scotland in to carry out that work. I recognise that there is now additional assurance required, ahead of the conclusion of the public inquiry, and that is why the independent oversight group has been established.
Whistleblowers have played an important role in ensuring that issues at the Queen Elizabeth hospital have come to light. What can the cabinet secretary say about the importance of whistleblowers, and how is he working to ensure that they are protected and supported going forward?
I am clear—I have made these points repeatedly, most frequently in my interactions with Stephen Kerr—that all concerns that are raised by whistleblowers must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.
Since the situation in the Queen Elizabeth hospital occurred, the Scottish Government has ensured the development of a robust set of whistleblowing measures to support staff to have the confidence to whistleblow without fear of repercussions. Those measures include setting up the role of the independent national whistleblowing officer, which commenced in 2021; the development of national whistleblowing standards; NHS Scotland’s national whistleblowing policy; an independent advice line; and dedicated whistleblowing champions on the board of every NHS Scotland health board. Externally, individuals can also raise concerns directly with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, NHS counter-fraud services, the Health and Safety Executive and Audit Scotland.
The Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee this very morning that the whistleblowing procedures are not working—that is the reality of the evidence. The cabinet secretary needs to face up to the reality of the evidence that is being presented by the commissioner to a committee of this Parliament. He can say that there are policies and procedures, and there is this and that, but the culture is not right—it does not work.
In relation to whistleblowers, it is disturbing to many of us in the chamber that the cabinet secretary cannot say yes to the question that he has been asked numerous times. Have the hospital’s systems been validated by an independent auditor or not? I can tell him that two whistleblowers have come to us in recent days to inform us that staff are telling patients on the cancer wards not to drink the water but to drink bottled water.
Will the cabinet secretary face up to the reality of these issues and deal with them now, and not hide behind the procedural things that he keeps bringing up?
I respect Stephen Kerr’s role in relation to whistleblowing in organisations. I understand the strength and force with which he seeks to make his contributions. I, too, have made those points. I have stated my expectation and that of this Government on culture and on the running of the NHS in Scotland. The chief executives and the chairs that are in post, and the independent whistleblowing champions of every health board, are clear about the Government’s and my expectations of how whistleblowers should be treated.
If that is not the case, I want to hear about it, including in my interactions with the Patient Safety Commissioner, whom I meet regularly. I recognise the evidence that she gave this morning. I heard it, I understand it and I meet her regularly in order to try to overcome some of the challenges that she set out. That goes to the heart of ensuring that proper patient safety procedures are followed, because when patients and staff feel able to speak up, that is when we have a system that can be counted on by the public.
Scotland has advanced support for patient safety that has attracted international commendation. I experienced that when I worked in the NHS as a nurse. It is vital that patients are assured of the Scottish Government’s determination to maintain a safe clinical environment.
The cabinet secretary is aware that the Patient Safety Commissioner was in Parliament today, giving evidence about her role to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Will he say any more about the commissioner’s role in supporting the Government’s work to ensure and improve patient safety across our NHS?
Scotland’s patient safety programme, which was world leading when it was launched in 2008, has reduced avoidable harm across multiple areas. We support Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspection programme to drive continuous improvement. The Patient Safety Commissioner, who was appointed following the Cumberlege review, advocates for patients and systemic improvement.
The patient safety programme leads are working with boards on the co-design and implementation of Martha’s rule in Scotland. Parliament has also introduced the patient safety charter, which reflects concerns that have been raised by families, including the family of Milly Main, to whom I pay the utmost tribute.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that, although public inquiries are immensely helpful when it comes to establishing the truth, they are by no means the only mechanisms through which to reestablish public trust, and that any Government should not hide behind them in order to avoid answering very specific questions?
Yes, I do. I hope that my interactions with Liz Smith on another public inquiry will give her confidence in relation to what I am saying here and why I am saying it. I am attempting to ensure that the independence of a public inquiry is respected and that it is allowed to do its work.
I am also conscious that, given the amended motion that was agreed last week, we must give greater assurance to the Parliament and members of the public as to the current safety of the hospital. That is why we have taken steps to provide that through the oversight group that Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie will assist in co-chairing. We are doing that precisely because I want to address the points that Liz Smith makes. I understand the perspective that she is coming at this from.
If the cabinet secretary had seen evidence that every part of the hospital was safe, he would not need to seek the additional reassurance that he talks about. What is that evidence, and where is it?
I am clear that the hospital is safe. I am clear about that from the evidence that has been before me and from the information that has been led through the public inquiry and the additional inspection that I asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to conduct. However, I recognise that there is a need for wider public confidence and for Parliament’s confidence in the safety of the hospital, and that is why I am respecting the will of Parliament in relation to the passage of the motion last week by seeking to provide additional oversight and assurance by establishing the oversight group.
The cabinet secretary has in his own mind used the question of the inquiry to ascertain whether the hospital is safe today. At what date can the inquiry publish that the hospital is safe, given that it will not report for many months?
I have been quoting evidence that has been led in the public inquiry, but I have not sought to make judgments as to the conclusion of the public inquiry. That is the distinction that I am seeking to draw.
I am not concluding that the hospital is safe purely on the evidence that has come through the public inquiry. That is additional—I am making that conclusion on the basis of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s work and the confidence that I have in the current leadership of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
I think that it is important—I think that Martin Whitfield would also—that Lord Brodie is able to conduct his business and come to his conclusions, independent of any interference, so that the families can get answers. That is fundamental to the effective operation of public inquiries and to the continued confidence of the public in Parliament.
That concludes the ministerial statement.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is incredibly important that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care gives true information in the chamber. That is massively important when we think about safety concerns at the hospital.
The cabinet secretary has this afternoon repeatedly presented evidence from the inquiry as saying that the hospital is safe and he has selectively quoted transcripts of evidence from the counsel to the inquiry. I will quote what the counsel actually said on the final day of the hearings. These are the words of Fred Mackintosh:
“the key point to make today is that the whole hospital ventilation system has not been validated. The general wards have not been validated. It’s most concerning that it’s still not been done.”
This is not a matter of the inquiry concluding and making recommendations. This is a matter of the safety of, and public trust in, our institutions in the here and now. The health secretary must do his job and make sure that we protect patient safety.
Mr Sarwar, with regard to that being a point of order, that is not a matter for the chair. The member will know at this point that the accuracy of the contribution that members make is a matter for them, ordinarily.