Official Report 817KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20731, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.
14:52
I begin by paying tribute to the late Jeane Freeman. My thoughts and those of all members of the Scottish Labour Party are with Jeane’s partner Susan and Jeane’s friends, family and former colleagues.
Jeane and I had many political disagreements, but I have to pay tribute to Jeane Freeman, because the progress that families, doctors and I have been able to make on the Queen Elizabeth university hospital was possible because Jeane Freeman was willing to listen, to reflect and to act. I put on record my thanks to Jeane for her commitment to Scotland and her commitment to public service. [Applause.]
I also firmly believe that, if Jeane Freeman was still the health secretary, we would not be having this debate today. Let me start by saying unequivocally that I will always put patient safety before politics, and I wish that that was the case with this Scottish National Party Government. If it was the case, we would not have had the devastating consequences that we have seen at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. We need transparency and answers now, so that we can rebuild public confidence and ensure patient safety.
It is now clear, after more than two weeks of questioning of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the First Minister, that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital—every unit and every ward—has not been validated. That is serious. That is not an acceptable place for the country or for the Government to be, and it does nothing to reassure people after everything that has played out over the past 10 years of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal.
Many questions about what happened and why remain unanswered, while families still have to fight for justice and truth and whistleblowers are still to be recognised for their heroic role. I recognise again the bravery and determination of Dr Penelope Redding, Dr Teresa Inkster and Dr Christine Peters. For nearly 10 years, those women have been bullied and dismissed by the very organisation that they serve. If they had been listened to, we would not be facing this situation now. I restate to the Parliament again: if those doctors are not satisfied, I am not satisfied, and not a single MSP in the Parliament should be satisfied.
Many of the wider issues will come out in the public inquiry, but this debate is about the here and now. Last week, Neil Gray announced the creation of another oversight board, this time to look at infection control issues. Although that is welcome in principle, it cannot be a repeat of previous oversight boards, which were used as political cover to protect the interests of those in power. It must do the urgent hard work, correct mistakes and ensure that patient safety is the only priority.
The Government now needs to be very clear on these questions. What is the timetable for the verification and validation of every ward and every unit of the hospital? When is the Government going to publish any current reports and any upcoming reports so that the public can have confidence? Will it give a cast-iron guarantee to include, and to be led by, the doctors who have been proven to be right in everything that they have said for the past 10 years? Will it guarantee that those who have been proven to be wrong in the past 10 years will not be the ones who are relied on to give the right answers this time?
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
This is a very serious matter. Children have died, and it is vital that we hear from everyone in exactly the way that Anas Sarwar has just set out. However, several Scottish Labour councillors and SNP councillors were on the board during this period. One is Patricia Ferguson, who is now chair of the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, and another is Martin McCluskey, who is a United Kingdom Government minister.
Scottish Conservatives called for Nicola Sturgeon to give a personal statement to MSPs, which the member and his party supported. For the same reasons, would Anas Sarwar back my calls for Patricia Ferguson and Martin McCluskey to make a personal statement in the House of Commons?
I can give you the time back, Mr Sarwar.
It is really important that members of the board that had responsibility for appointments are told why information was withheld from that board by board executives and board managers and by Government—they need to answer those questions.
Finally, on the questions that need to be answered, will the Government guarantee that there will be genuine independent oversight of the validation and verification process? In order to rebuild public confidence and ensure public safety, the Government must publish all the documentation: everything that it has right now and everything that follows. Anything less than a full commitment on those questions is not good enough, and any equivocation will only demonstrate that the Government has not learned the lessons of the past and is just repeating the same mistakes.
However, I will go further and make a firm commitment today. If the Government does not take the appropriate action, I will. I am very clear that I will ensure that we have an open process and that we will verify and validate the hospital. I will have a transparent and public process. If that means that remedial work has to be done, I will pull out all the stops to make sure that that work happens so that patients can be safe and have confidence. I will not compromise patient safety, so if I have to temporarily close individual wards or units, I will, because I put patient safety before politics, always.
I make it clear that amazing things happen as a result of amazing staff in the hospital every single day. I also accept that there is always a risk of adverse incidents in the NHS—that is the nature of healthcare. However, we have to stop the deliberate misjudgments and a rotten culture of secrecy and cover-up that adds risk to patient safety, and adds higher risk to immunocompromised patients.
The Government needs to put patient safety, truth and transparency at the forefront, and it must stop hiding behind a public inquiry when it comes to operational decisions and patient safety today.
The QEUH was Scotland’s super-hospital: a crown jewel in the SNP Government’s record. That record is now stained with scandal, shame and flat-out corruption. People have died, families have been betrayed and staff have been bullied. The situation is so serious that deaths that are linked to avoidable infections at the hospital are being investigated by the Crown Office, yet no minister and no official has ever taken responsibility or accountability. It is quite the opposite—people have been rewarded.
That cannot happen again. It is time to put patients before politics and to ensure that those who are in need in our hospitals are kept safe.
Let me end by repeating my commitment to the families and staff. I will not be silenced; I will not rest; I will not stop until they get the truth and the justice that they deserve.
I move,
That the Parliament is concerned that the Scottish Government is unable to state clearly that the ventilation and water systems at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital have been validated as meeting required safety requirements; recognises that thousands of patients are treated safely and expertly cared for by NHS staff in the hospital every year; welcomes the establishment of a Safety and Public Confidence Oversight Group, and calls on the Scottish Government to set out by what date it intends to carry out the risk assessment of the hospital’s ventilation system, as recommended by the inquiry, what mitigations are currently in place to ensure that the water is safe to use, how it intends to protect at-risk patients in areas that have not been validated, and when this validation will be carried out and the documentation shared with whistleblowers and infection control.
I call Neil Gray to speak to and move amendment S6M-20731.1.
15:00
I begin by offering my heartfelt condolences to all the families who have been impacted by the issues that are being considered by the Scottish hospitals inquiry. Patients and families deserve answers, and I believe that, through Lord Brodie’s inquiry, that is what they will get.
Like Mr Sarwar, I am also reminded of the fact that our then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Jeane Freeman, took the important steps to get to where we are today. It was Jeane who first took forward the concerns of families and whistleblowers, first instigating the independent review and, thereafter, the Scottish hospitals inquiry in 2019. It was also Jeane, in her time as cabinet secretary, who took the initial steps to ensure that a future body would be set up to assure the safety and risk management of NHS sites. Indeed, the body NHS Scotland Assure was established in 2021 for that very purpose—a fact that is mentioned in the Government’s amendment to the motion.
This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to place on record in the Parliament my sincere sadness that we lost Jeane Freeman at the weekend. Jeane was a force of nature in the best possible way. She was incredibly intelligent, loyal and generous with her time, support and kindness. She was a force for good, and encouraged us all to be better. I know that the Parliament will have the opportunity to properly remember Jeane, but I also know how much the subject of the debate propelled her to put into force the changes that have strengthened the safety of our hospitals. It is right that I take the opportunity to recognise her leadership, and my thoughts are very much with her beloved Susan, their families and friends, and all the many people who loved Jeane.
Jeane was driven in all that she did by a sense of justice and the need to fight for a fairer Scotland. She wanted to get to the truth for patients, whistleblowers and families as she recognised that they had been let down—that is what she said in September last year. Again, that is why I bring the debate back to the people who are at the heart of the inquiry. It was for them that the inquiry was established to interrogate decisions that were taken and the decision-making processes, to identify responsibility wherever it lies, and to shine a light where answers were lacking, so that they could get the justice that they deserve. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and hurt that is felt by all those who have lost a loved one but who have so bravely and candidly participated in the Scottish hospitals inquiry. It is absolutely vital that Lord Brodie, as chair of the inquiry, be given the necessary space and time to come to his own conclusions for families without political interference. I again reiterate that important point to colleagues. I also reiterate that the Government will not comment on the live police inquiry, nor seek to speculate on Lord Brodie’s conclusions, regardless of colleagues’ appetite for me to do so.
Turning to the substance of Labour’s motion, I echo its recognition of the safe and expert care that is carried out at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I place on record my heartfelt thanks to all staff, no matter their role, as they all contribute to the excellent service. I also recognise the fact that the new leadership of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has committed to rebuilding trust and public confidence. The new safety and public confidence oversight group that I announced last week will be vital in that respect, and I am delighted that the group will be co-chaired by Sir Lewis Ritchie. I met Sir Lewis yesterday and I am assured that he will provide robust and independent scrutiny of the issues. That is why I cannot support the Tories’ amendment to the motion, which seeks to ignore the fact that the group will have important independent and external oversight.
The group will, as highlighted in the Government’s amendment to the motion, also look at the wider issues of the built environment and validation that are of interest to Labour’s motion. It is right that I allow the group to undertake that work free from ministerial interference. Indeed, if I was seeking to direct the group’s findings, I am sure that some of the very same members who are speaking about accountability and transparency would have choice words for me.
Will the member take an intervention?
I can give the cabinet secretary the time back.
Given all that, at the end of the day, when such tragedies occur, who will ultimately be held responsible and accountable as a result of the findings of inquiries?
The Government will be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations that fall under the responsibility of the Government that are made by the public inquiry. We will also ensure that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is held accountable to ensure the speedy implementation of the recommendations that are made to it.
I will not seek to pre-empt the issues that the new oversight group will review. I welcome its intention to include whistleblowers, patient representatives and the public in its work. The group will draw on the expertise of national agencies such as NHS Scotland Assure, Healthcare Improvement Scotland and industry experts to continue to demonstrate that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital provides a safe environment for patients and staff. However, given the significant level of political and public interest, I agree that it is vital that the Parliament also be kept updated on the group’s work. That is what my amendment seeks to ensure.
I turn to the important issues of water safety, ventilation and infection control that are highlighted in Labour’s motion. Ministers have already placed on the record our confidence in the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, but I will set out that case again.
First, I have absolute confidence in the leadership of the board and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and their ability to ensure the cultural change that is needed in Glasgow. That is vital in ensuring that whistleblowers are protected and supported to speak up. When I met Scotland’s new national independent whistleblowing officer last week, I reiterated the Government’s commitment to a safe whistleblowing culture.
Secondly, the inquiry heard from independent expert Andrew Poplett that the water system management is now “extremely well managed”, with “significant improvement” having been made.
rose—
I am sorry, but I am already toiling for time.
More than 30,000water samples were taken and analysed in 2025, and similarly, monthly air quality testing is undertaken in the necessary areas. Mr Poplett noted that the facilities team is exceeding standard guidance and is adopting a proactive and preventative approach that prioritises patient safety and resilience.
Furthermore, I confirm that the board has commissioned and received two independent reports on its water and ventilation systems to provide further assurances. Those reports will be considered by the safety and public confidence oversight group. That is in addition to proactive planned maintenance of the hospital systems, which is carried out routinely, and to reactive reporting and escalation, which is carried out as and when required to ensure the hospital’s clinical safety.
The findings of the independent reports on the water and ventilation systems have been positive: there was a fully compliant ventilation assessment in December 2025—
You need to conclude, cabinet secretary.
—and a fully compliant water safety system this January.
There is more detail that I will put on the record in my closing remarks on the debate.
As I said at the outset of my speech, we must ensure that the patients, families and staff who are at the heart of the issues that we are discussing get the truth that they deserve through Lord Brodie’s inquiry. For those reasons, I ask members to support the Government’s amendment.
I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-20731, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:
“agrees that whistleblowers in Scotland’s NHS must be protected and supported; notes that NHS Assure was the body created in 2021 to improve risk management and safety in Scotland’s NHS estate; further notes that both Healthcare Improvement Scotland and independent experts have commented on the procedures now in place to ensure the safety of hospital for patients and staff; welcomes the creation of a Safety and Public Confidence Oversight Group, which will look at specific issues, including in relation to the built environment and validation; further welcomes that this group will be co-chaired by Sir Lewis Ritchie to provide additional scrutiny; agrees that Parliament must be kept updated of this group’s work, and further agrees that the chair of the independent inquiry must be given the time and space to come to his conclusions without political interference.”
The limited time that we had available has now been exhausted. Therefore, members will now need to stick to their allocated speaking time.
15:07
I apologise to members for needing to leave promptly when the debate is due to finish at 4.
I also associate myself with the remarks about Jeane Freeman that were made by Anas Sarwar and Neil Gray.
The Scottish Conservatives support much that is in the motion and seek to strengthen it with our amendment. The motion rightly recognises the exceptional NHS staff at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, who deliver outstanding care in the most difficult of circumstances.
Those who held office during the scandalous years must be held to account. This is a debate about trust, and trust has been shattered by more than a decade of SNP mismanagement, evasion and political spin. Children died, families were lied to and gaslit, and whistleblowers were threatened and silenced. The hospital was rushed open in 2015 before it was ready, not because it was safe but because it suited the SNP’s public relations agenda. It was politics over patients.
When the truth began to emerge, the response was not honesty; it was bureaucracy, legal threats and institutional spin. There was a disgraceful campaign of silence from a health board and a Government that were more interested in optics than accountability. What did Nicola Sturgeon’s chief nursing officer, Fiona McQueen, reportedly suggest? She reportedly suggested that the families be offered £50,000,
“which is a trip to Disneyland”.
Sophia Smith’s brave mother said:
“I told her we didn’t want your holidays and your money. We want”
justice. Mrs McQueen is still on the public payroll, earning more than £90,000 per year as chair of the Scottish Police Authority, an organisation that
“aims to increase public trust … in policing through accountable, proportionate and transparent oversight and scrutiny.”
The irony.
I ask the question again: why are Scottish taxpayers still funding someone who allegedly showed such appalling judgment? Accountability must begin today. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and to the Criminal Justice Committee, because it is of paramount importance that Fiona McQueen appears in front of the committee to explain her heartless and shameless alleged bribe to grieving families.
However, the issue goes far beyond one individual. We cannot accept that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is running and co-chairing the oversight body. It is the same health board that presided over the failings and caused the scandal. Millie Main’s mum said that she was
“let down and lied to”
by health officials. Victims have no confidence in its leadership. You could not make it up: it is like asking a fox to guard the hen house. The public deserve real oversight, not more of the same.
Let me say this clearly: whistleblowers have shown extraordinary courage, but they have lived in fear for their livelihoods. I have spoken to them, and they deserve our thanks and protection, not punishment. Whistleblowers tell me today that cancer patients are being told not to drink the tap water or even brush their teeth with it. The cabinet secretary should go to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and drink a litre of the tap water on camera. If it is safe enough for patients, it should be safe enough for ministers.
We condemn Shona Robison, the former health secretary, for breaking her pledge to the Parliament to carry out an independent safety audit before the hospital opened. That broken promise might have cost lives. The scandal has devastated families and damaged public trust in the NHS. Let this be the turning point—put patients over PR, put truth over spin and put accountability over political preservation.
I move amendment S6M-20731.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to “Group” and insert:
“expresses concern that the Safety and Public Confidence Oversight Group will be run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, in light of the lack of confidence that victims have in the NHS board; calls on the Chief Executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to therefore stand down as co-chair of the group; urges the Scottish Government to work with the Patient Safety Commissioner to immediately strengthen protections for NHS whistleblowers; condemns the Scottish Government for its failure to tackle a culture of secrecy and denial across the NHS; admonishes the former health secretary, Shona Robison, for breaking her pledge to carry out an independent safety audit prior to the opening of the hospital; requests that Fiona McQueen appear before the Scottish Parliament to account for her reported actions in dismissing the complaints of victims”.
15:11
I follow others in acknowledging the sudden passing of Jeane Freeman and offer our condolences to Susan, the wider family and SNP colleagues, who I know keenly feel her loss.
I open by paying tribute to the patients, families and staff who have campaigned for years, often at great personal cost, to bring the issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to light. We would not be having the debate without them. I whole-heartedly pledge my party’s support to getting the truth for families, and we will do everything that we can to hold those who are responsible to account. To lose a loved one in the place where they are meant to be safe is unimaginable. To then be lied to about what happened to them is disgraceful. Patients and families have been betrayed and staff have been silenced—that must never happen again.
I welcome the debate because it is important that we continue to scrutinise the Government’s response to the issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and it is an important function of the Parliament. We will support the Labour motion because, although we have been reassured that the hospital is safe, it is an on-going concern that the cabinet secretary has not been able to assure us of a full validation at the hospital.
We talk about restoring patient trust—a validation would be a necessary and vital step towards achieving that, because people deserve to know what is happening. However, I have some concerns about how we move forward, get answers for patients and crucially rebuild confidence in the services that are essential for so many. We should question the Government and apply pressure where it is needed without causing additional alarm. The last thing that we want to do is put people off from attending potentially life-saving treatment.
In the motion, Jackie Baillie acknowledges that
“thousands of patients are treated safely and expertly cared for by NHS staff in the hospital every year”,
which is hugely important, but some parts of the motion could cause further anxiety and fear. I say that gently, not to undermine the important issues that the motion raises but to highlight that there are two important tasks at the heart of this: getting answers for families and rebuilding trust. The motion references “at-risk patients”, which potentially undermines the work that has been done to reassure patients and staff.
In the previous debate that we held on the topic, my amendment, which all parties voted for, said that the Parliament
“acknowledges that recent revelations surrounding the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital will have been distressing for patients, their families and staff”
and
“understands that this could create uncertainty and fear regarding the safety of Scotland’s hospitals and negatively impact staff morale”.
We will always seek to hold the Government to account and get those answers, and like everyone in this chamber, I am on the side of patients, families and staff and want to see them get the truth because they deserve it. I will vote for the motion because I, like others, want as much scrutiny as possible, but we need to reflect on how we can provide that scrutiny without creating more anxiety than has already been created.
Ultimately, however, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to reassure people. The Government and the health board must be fully transparent. That means, as well as co-operating fully with the inquiry, publishing any additional documents and communications that are requested, whenever the request is reasonable.
The Government has a tough hill to climb before it earns back the trust of patients, families and staff. I welcome the establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group, which will play an important role in rebuilding relationships. Previously, I asked the cabinet secretary whether there would be patient and staff representatives on the group, so I would be grateful if he could clarify in his closing speech whether that will be the case.
It is vital that we rebuild trust and confidence in Scotland’s hospitals. That must be led by the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government, but, as MSPs, we also have an important role to play.
15:15
As others have done, I start by sharing the sadness of colleagues about the death of Jeane Freeman, and I send my condolences on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Those of us in the chamber who lived through the Covid years will remember that they were dark and difficult, but no one ever doubted Jeane’s commitment to making Scotland as safe as it could be during that time. We send our warmest thoughts to her family, her partner and her colleagues in the chamber.
The crux of this debate is the issue of trust. Do the public trust our institutions to properly investigate what went so badly wrong at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital? Do the public trust any of us here today to unearth what went wrong, or who knew what, without the usual political point scoring that normally comes with health debates? Do people out there trust that the hospitals that they attend to get better or that look after their loved ones are, ultimately, safe? Do the public trust that NHS boards, the Government and those at the very top will hold up their hands and take responsibility, so that none of this ever happens again?
Those questions are important, because those who lost loved ones were forced to campaign for answers, for the truth and for accountability. They never had the chance to grieve properly. Many of us in the chamber, including me, will have had loved ones in that hospital, and we trusted that hospital to look after them, care for them and help them to get better. For some families, their loved ones did not come out. Trust has been shattered by this scandal—“scandal” is the only word that I can find that is fitting to describe what has happened.
We often come here to criticise the Government about capital projects, but we are talking not about a delayed and overbudget ferry or prison but about a hospital. This is about lives that were lost because something somewhere went wrong. Those families deserve to know exactly what went wrong and, more important, who was responsible for it. Anything less should not and will not be tolerated by any of us.
Someone who was affected by this got in touch with me anonymously yesterday. She was treated at the hospital as a patient and has since developed numerous infections, so she still requires on-going treatment. The lady told me:
“I’m living with PTSD following the mistreatment of my care … I do not know what the future holds for me and whether the treatment by the specialists … will ultimately be successful”,
but
“I certainly do not believe is that there has been any cultural change”
in that health board.
“They are not transparent and they are evasive”.
I have not read out that quote to point fingers at individuals on the current NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board, but it hammers home the point that the central issue of trust is at the heart of this ordeal. That constituent of mine does not trust the health board to do the right thing, and she is not alone.
We must start by addressing the most important issue: patient safety. The Scottish Government must promptly and publicly confirm the safety of every ward and unit in this hospital. I have no doubt that patients who are there now are being treated well and carefully by our amazing NHS staff, but ministers must validate that safety in public, explicitly, because the Government must restore trust in the hospital.
The reason why the safety and public confidence oversight group must not mark its own homework relates exactly to the issue of trust. Years of denial from the board have undermined the public’s trust. The board did not take people’s concerns seriously, and now, for some, it is too late.
With that in mind, we are happy to support Labour’s motion, and we thank Labour for bringing it to the chamber. We will also support the Conservative amendment. However, we will not support the Government amendment. If we want to restore public trust, we must have accountability and honesty—and that must start here in this chamber, now.
We move to the open debate.
15:19
Today, we are seeking clarity on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Public trust and confidence in our NHS should always be a top priority—without it, we risk undermining the very foundations of our health service.
I thank all the hard-working and dedicated staff who deliver safe and effective care across Scotland each and every day. Staff are the backbone of our NHS, and I am grateful for all that they do in caring for our families, friends and loved ones. Let us be clear: the issues that we are discussing today are not an attack on those who deliver care. Rather, this debate highlights the failures in governance systems and structures, because what happened at the hospital is a scandal.
Again, I put on record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the patients, families and staff who were ignored and betrayed. Hospitals are supposed to help people to get better, not make them sicker, and no one should worry that hospitals and healthcare facilities are not safe.
The truth is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened before it was ready, and it opened with contaminated water. The risk of waterborne infection was foreseeable, and issues were raised, but they were not acted on. Those who raised concerns were belittled, silenced and threatened, and whistleblowing procedures were not followed. The health board failed to admit serious errors in judgment and withheld the truth from patients and families.
NHS staff deserve to work in an environment in which their concerns are listened to and addressed, particularly when patient safety is a concern. However, on this Government’s watch, that did not happen.
What happened at the hospital was a monumental failure—it was a failure in safety, a failure in leadership and a failure in accountability. Of course, we cannot rewrite the errors of the past, but we must do everything possible to ensure that patients are kept safe and that past mistakes are never repeated. We must ensure that those who are affected by the contaminated water are told the truth, and we must ensure that steps are taken to reassure patients that the hospital is safe.
The establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group is welcome, and action must be taken to boost the public’s confidence in the hospital. The oversight group cannot be another tick-box exercise—it must lead to tangible and meaningful change for patients, families and staff.
While we wait for the oversight group to begin its reporting, which could take months, the public need to be reassured now. We do not need an oversight group to tell us whether every ward and unit in the hospital has been fully validated; the Government could give us that information today. We do not need an oversight group to tell us what immediate steps are being taken to address issues with whistleblowing, which the Patient Safety Commissioner has identified as a system-wide issue. Finally, we do not need an oversight group to tell us how the Scottish Government will ensure full transparency over hospital safety concerns in the future.
I recognise the work that the group has been set up to do, but the Government has the power to reassure patients now. The public want to know whether each area of the hospital has been fully validated, including water and ventilation systems, whether that has been independently verified and, if so, whether that information will be published.
Until those questions are answered and patients and staff are satisfied, Parliament cannot be satisfied. It is our job to speak up for our constituents and scrutinise this failing Government. Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour are doing just that.
15:24
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
I begin as I did when I spoke on the subject two weeks ago, which is to express my deepest sympathies to all of those who are grieving the loss of a loved one in the circumstances that we are discussing today.
In 2019, the Scottish Government decided to establish a public inquiry to get to the truth. It did so precisely because the families’ pain was being compounded by having to tenaciously chase the truth themselves. An independent inquiry, with comprehensive statutory powers granted to it, is how we will get the level of open scrutiny and truth that families and patients deserve. That is what we all want to see.
As a nurse with 30 years’ experience, I have spoken previously in the Parliament about how important trust is to patients’ and families’ experiences of healthcare, and about how patient experience and reassurance are related to recovery and patient outcomes.
The Government’s amendment to today’s motion agrees that whistleblowers in Scotland’s NHS must be protected and supported; notes that NHS Assure was created in 2021 to improve risk management and safety in Scotland’s NHS estate; and acknowledges notes that both Healthcare Improvement Scotland and independent experts have commented on the procedures now in place to ensure the safety of hospital for patients and staff. I also welcome the involvement of Sir Lewis Ritchie in the safety and public confidence oversight group, which will look at specific issues, including in relation to the built environment and validation.
Let us pause for a second to remember that the independent public inquiry, which I am confident will provide the answers, reassurances and recommendations that we are all looking for, is still under way. While that is the case, it would be completely inappropriate for ministers to pre-empt its findings or final recommendations or otherwise direct its business.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
Not only would it be completely inappropriate for ministers to seek to do anything other than allow that process to continue—which, yet again, is being obfuscated by the Labour motion today—but it would be unlawful. The clue is in the name: public inquiries, such as the one that is being led by Lord Brodie, are obliged to conduct their work in an open and transparent manner.
That is why we know that Lord Brodie commissioned the reports and audits that have been referenced already on water and ventilation from Andrew Poplett, the inquiry’s expert; that Andrew Poplett’s view is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s current procedures for managing the water system are suitable and safe; that he noted that the facilities team is now exceeding standard guidance and adopting a proactive and preventative approach that prioritises patient safety and resilience; and that expert testimony to the inquiry has advised that governance arrangements for water and ventilation are now optimal.
Those independent judgments are important markers of the progress that has been made and of the seriousness with which patient safety is now embedded in day-to-day operations at the hospital. I will not pre-empt the inquiry’s final conclusions and recommendations, but I am pleased that, during its course, we have been provided with important reassurances about the hospital’s water and ventilation.
As I did in my speech two weeks ago, I will finish by bringing my focus back to the patients and families. I sincerely hope that, when the inquiry’s final conclusions and recommendations are published, they will finally gain a sense of closure and feel that their questions have been answered.
15:28
It is with reluctance that we are, once again, having to raise the concerns about the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s ventilation and water systems in the Parliament. We do so because we feel compelled to, because patient safety in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is still very much in question, and because we are not satisfied that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is sufficiently across the issue.
When the topic was last raised in the Parliament, I talked about the culture that needed to change in Scotland. That is a much wider and more encompassing issue. I talked about how we must end the situation where loyalty and compliance are rewarded over competency and moral courage and where being in the club is more important than holding institutions of power to account.
In the short time that I have to speak this afternoon, I will talk about how we can do things differently and build a culture that identifies good practice, emulates it, manages problems with integrity and starts to change things for the better through a system of moral courage.
In the shipbuilding industry that I came from, where health and safety must be kept at high standards because lives are at stake, there is a clear expectation at all levels of the workforce that everyone in a team has the responsibility to stop the job if they perceive that something unsafe is happening.
In every major disaster that we have seen in recent years, from the Boeing 737 MAX to Chernobyl, the same pattern applies. People feel that they are unable to speak out or raise concerns and, as a result, lives are lost. That is what has played out in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. It does not matter whether someone is an apprentice, an engineer or a senior executive: if something is unsafe, they are supposed to call it out and, often, stop working until the issue is resolved.
That is an easy thing to say but, in practice, it takes a great deal of trust, training and courage for that approach to operate as it should. For an apprentice to speak out, they must have confidence that their concerns will be listened to, that action will be taken and that the blame will be on those who caused the issue or failed to act, rather than on those who spotted it and tried to get it resolved.
We have seen that those who had the moral courage have been harangued, cajoled and pressured into silence. It is their courage that we should recognise today, more than anything else, because they have acted with public spirit at their heart. They have undoubtedly helped to save lives, but it is too much of a loss for us to bear that people died unnecessarily as a result of negligence, and we must hold people to account for that. Lives are on the line.
Some members might be wondering how my point relates to the national health service, but it is clear that we need to improve our culture of management in the national health service. The lives of patients and staff are simply too important—any one of us or any member of our family could be affected—to allow an old-fashioned game of pass the blame to continue. We need staff to feel empowered to raise issues and to stop what is happening. We need them to know that their concerns will be acted on immediately and that accountability will lie with those who hold the relevant responsibilities for ensuring safety.
Although many will say that that is already in place, today’s debate shows that we are still not there yet. Today, there are still live risks with the ventilation system in the hospital. The failure to act to validate those critical systems is simply unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
It is time for the leadership of the Government to stop playing games and to work with the national health service to improve its health and safety record. It is time to stop working towards election deadlines and, instead, do the harder job of guiding our public health system to where it needs to be.
None of the changes that are needed will help the people who have lost loved ones due to the unsafe water and ventilation situation. However, if they are implemented now, we can begin to create a national health service in which such scandals do not happen again. I hope that members will support our motion.
15:32
It fell to me, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, to welcome Jeane Freeman to her ministerial responsibilities in this place in 2016—a happy duty at the time. I note that I reflected then that she brought considerable lifetime experience to Government, but I also noted a comment from her mother, who said that Jeane had a voice that could sell coal. She may not have had to sell coal in here, but she commanded the respect of the Parliament through the detailed and conscientious way in which she approached her responsibilities, and never more so than in the way in which she brought her attention to focus on the women who had suffered from mesh.
It might have been Humza Yousaf who took through a bill on the issue at the start of this session, but it was Jeane Freeman who accepted the case that there was an argument to allow women to be sent to the United States, to Dr Veronikis, to have mesh removed that they had been told by the health service in this country was no longer even present in their system. That is a debt of gratitude that I will not forget, and it is a debt of gratitude that the women and their families will carry for the rest of their lives. I hope that Susan knows that Jeane made a difference—because she made a difference. [Applause.]
I want to speak about the oversight group, which was a suggestion from the cabinet secretary in response to a defeat on a Labour Party motion in the previous week. That is not something that the Government volunteered to do; it is something that the Government decided to do in response. I sometimes worry about how that sort of thing comes about. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary went back to his office and said, “What the heck do I do now?” and some civil servant said, “Well, minister, you could set up an oversight group. That would be quite a nice way to deal with things. It shows you as a man of action, and it also allows you, in the future, whenever any inquiries are made about the subject, to say, ‘Well, we now have an oversight group and we need to let it duly respond.’”
Why am I slightly cynical about that? I return to the mesh. As a result of the mesh scandal, we set up a patient safety review group. What was the outcome of that? Eventually, there was a commissioned report by Professor Alison Britton, which made 46 recommendations on how such groups should be structured and conducted in the future—because that oversight group on mesh led to the resignation of the very woman who had been invited to participate in it, because she had the experience of the issue to do so.
I ask the cabinet secretary whether, in fact, every one of Professor Alison Britton’s recommendations on how such groups should operate has been embedded in the operational criteria that are being used to establish the working practices of that group. I should say that we have written to Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie to draw his attention to Alison Britton’s recommendations—which were fully accepted by the Government at the time, and which we were told every future group would incorporate into its working practices—and to ask him to ensure that they absolutely are embedded.
This is one of the great scandals of our time and the biggest scandal of this Parliament. If there is going to be a patient oversight group, it has to be able to operate with the full confidence of everybody who is employed in it. We must know that it will not be some sort of chimera of obfuscation, but that it will actually be able to ensure that this does not happen again and that people know why it did happen.
15:36
I, too, pay my respects and tribute to Jeane Freeman and offer my condolences to her partner.
I am concerned that the attempt by the Labour Party to interfere in the independent inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is shifting base but with the same goal: to undermine confidence in the inquiry and the confidence of patients and staff in the safety of the hospital. Interference—undermining the findings before the publication of the report—is Labour’s shame. I have here a copy of the letter from Anas Sarwar to Lord Brodie, a former inner house judge, which blatantly breaches the independence of the inquiry process and challenges the very competence of Lord Brodie as chair.
Mr Sarwar requests that the five-year-long inquiry be reopened, particularly to interrogate Government ministers—despite the fact that Jeane Freeman, who established the inquiry, had already given evidence and the fact that Government ministers had stated that they would give evidence if requested to. That they have not been called is entirely at the judgment of Lord Brodie, who may call whomsoever he wants.
I quote from Mr Sarwar’s letter:
“I appreciate that reopening public evidence sessions would be an extraordinary step but I believe that it is the best route to securing the answers that families and staff need and ensuring that your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component in the scandal.”
I repeat: to ensure that
“your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component”.
The conclusion must be that Lord Brodie is not up to the job, that he has failed to call all relevant witnesses and that failure to do as Anas Sarwar asks will mean that the inquiry is flawed and cannot be relied on. That is an act of desperation and political sabotage.
In 2007, following eight years of a Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration, Scotland faced a major crisis in relation to hospital-acquired infections. An example is the Vale of Leven hospital in Jackie Baillie’s constituency, where Clostridium difficile was a contributory factor in 34 deaths. Those failures had occurred during the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration. The SNP, new to government, instigated an independent inquiry, which was published in 2014 and which established that the hospital environment had not been conducive to safety and cleanliness, with poor antibiotic prescribing practices and inadequate nursing care.
In 2007, a Health Protection Scotland survey found that 9.5 per cent of patients in acute hospitals in Scotland had a healthcare-associated infection. In the same year, under Nicola Sturgeon’s stewardship as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the outsourcing of cleaning and catering contracts to private companies in acute hospitals was banned—they were brought back in-house. As a result, the number of hospital-acquired infections was halved, from 9.5 per cent in 2005-06 to 4.9 per cent by 2011, and it remains low.
Why do I say that? The SNP’s track record of responding—and, more than that, of letting independent inquiries do their work without fear or favour—goes back a long way. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of Labour.
We move to the winding-up speeches.
15:39
At the heart of this debate are patients and families, many of whom will be hurt, traumatised and angry. That is why it is so important that we get the tone of such debates right, that we air concerns without worsening their trauma and that we share stories without invading their privacy, because they have been through enough. To lose a loved one in a place where they were meant to be safe is unimaginable. To then be lied to about what happened to them is disgraceful, and we should make sure that it never happens again.
As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group. I am either less cynical or more hopeful than Jackson Carlaw. Although it cannot make up for the suffering that has been inflicted on the patients and families involved, I believe that it provides a crucial opportunity to restore trust and rebuild relationships.
To save some time in my closing speech, I confirm to Gillian Mackay, in response to her question in her opening speech, that patients and staff will be represented on the oversight group.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that.
Along with the public inquiry, the oversight group will, we hope, help to answer any questions that patients, families and staff have about what went wrong at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, who is responsible, how they will be held to account and how we can move forward.
I hope that the Scottish Government will fully embrace the opportunity that the oversight group gives us to make progress while we are waiting for the full outcomes of the inquiry. We must not squander that opportunity, because too many people have been let down and traumatised by the failings at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The oversight group must be open, transparent and—crucially—accountable. That is why it is imperative, as I mentioned earlier, that patient and staff representatives are on the group. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that that will be the case. Pastoral support must be offered to those staff and patient representatives. What some of them will have been through is unimaginable, and it is vital that a trauma-informed approach is taken, so that their suffering is not compounded by reliving the events at the hospital.
Despite my reservations about the wording of the Labour motion, I will vote for it at decision time, as I said in my opening speech. The Scottish Government still has questions to answer about the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and we would not be doing our jobs as MSPs if we did not put those questions to the cabinet secretary. We must keep putting questions, for as long as it takes for them to be answered, to whoever needs to answer them. We need to get to the bottom of what has happened at the hospital, which often means robustly challenging the Government and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I think that we can do that in a way that avoids retraumatising or potentially scaring people out of treatment.
It is vital that we do not lose sight of the people who have been most affected—the patients, their loved ones and the grieving families. Their pain and suffering must be at the forefront of our minds at all times.
15:43
I add my condolences to the family and friends of Jeane Freeman. I had the opportunity—the daunting opportunity—to sit opposite her during her time as health secretary. She was incredibly intelligent. She could be really fierce, but she was always fair and always open to discussion with members from across the chamber, especially during the dark times of the Covid pandemic. My thoughts are with Susan, Jeane’s family and her colleagues.
Let me turn to my closing remarks on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Here we are again. It is the same old story of the Opposition keeping the spotlight shining on a tragedy in the health service and a Government following the usual pattern of resisting accountability and responsibility before, eventually—after pressure from constituents, MSPs and the media—falling behind the shield of a public inquiry. It is not that I am against the holding of a public inquiry. I would say that that is essential in this case. The issue is what happens afterwards, who is held accountable and responsible, and what change will be enacted following the recommendations.
Unfortunately, we have been here before. My colleague and friend Jackson Carlaw raised the spectacle of the mesh scandal. I remember hearing evidence, as a member of the Public Petitions Committee, from those who had suffered as a result of that scandal. My colleague Jackson Carlaw was front and centre in the process of supporting the petitioners and pursuing the Government for justice and change, to ensure that such a scandal would never happen again. There were years of ducking and diving and trying to avoid taking action. Anyone who witnessed the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Shona Robison, and the then chief executive officer, Catherine Calderwood, floundering as they tried to answer questions from the Public Petitions Committee while the sufferers—many of them confined to wheelchairs—sat behind them would have found it absolutely painful to watch.
On Eljamel, the first red flag was raised by concerned staff in 2009, but the inquiry began in 2025—again, only after the Government was relentlessly pursued by my friend and colleague Liz Smith, in support of affected constituents. Let us not forget that, last week, in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, when I asked the Patient Safety Commissioner whether she thought such a case could never happen again, she said, chillingly, that she was “not confident” about that. Think about that. That catastrophe was raised in 2009, and the Scottish Government and NHS governance have not learned the lessons that need to be learned in order for us to avoid such a tragedy happening again.
I also raise the case of my constituents Fraser Morton and his partner, June, whose son Lucas would have been 10 years old this year had it not been for failings in a neonatal unit, where he died during childbirth. I was present during meetings with NHS Ayrshire and Arran and meetings with Shona Robison and Catherine Calderwood, when they tried to talk him down. I recall the eventual investigation by Health Improvement Scotland, which followed a television documentary on the situation and discovered that there was a shortfall of 24 neonatal staff, and that there was a high mortality rate at the time. Thank goodness Fraser Morton never took the compensation that he was offered to go away.
Consider this, Presiding Officer. Where would we be if we did not have a Liz Smith or a Jackson Carlaw and others from across the chamber putting their shoulders to the wheel to support constituents and victims? Where would we be if Fraser Morton had not been as relentless as he was and had given up and taken the compensation, and if we had not had campaigners who resisted platitudes from ministers and managers alike and demanded the changes that are so needed?
One of the biggest barriers to accountability or changing the culture across the NHS is just how fragmented our healthcare system is. We have 14 regional boards, seven special health boards—nine if we include Public Health Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission—30 integration joint boards, 31 health and social care partnerships and 32 local authorities, all involved to some degree in the delivery of healthcare.
Will the Scottish Government do what is necessary to end the culture of defensiveness in the face of mistakes, the culture of closing ranks and protecting the system even when the system is wrong, and the culture of ostracising those who speak out rather than hearing them? Without that, the NHS will never be the health service that we want it to be. Therefore, I ask again: who is responsible, and who is accountable?
15:47
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I hope that we have a collective interest in strengthening public confidence in the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Families seeking answers from the public inquiry deserve to hear its findings in the knowledge that it has been allowed to carry on independently and without fear of any political interference—that touches on a point that was raised by Christine Grahame. Like those who are seen by any other NHS service, patients in the hospital now and in the future want to be reassured that their care will be safe.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is responsible for all operations at the Queen Elizabeth and is taking significant steps to maintain public confidence and assure the safety of the hospital. That responsibility requires oversight and scrutiny, and I am confident that Sir Lewis Ritchie will not shirk his responsibility to provide independent challenge where that is needed. To ease Carol Mochan’s concerns, I say that I do not think that anyone could suggest that Sir Lewis Ritchie is a tick-box type person.
Further to my opening remarks on the current safety of the water and ventilation systems, I can confirm that the board has commissioned and received two independent reports on its water and ventilation systems to provide further assurances. Those reports will be considered by the safety and public confidence oversight group, in addition to proactive planned maintenance of the hospital systems, which is carried out routinely, and in addition to reactive reporting and escalation, which is carried out as and when required, to ensure the clinical safety of the hospital.
The findings of the independent reports on the water and ventilation systems have been positive, with a fully compliant ventilation assessment in December last year and a fully compliant water system assessment in January this year.
Ventilation governance has been subject to equally rigorous scrutiny. In March last year, Healthcare Improvement Scotland was asked to review progress in Glasgow, 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 assessment. HIS further confirmed that the subsequent action plan showed that all four requirements had been completed. That evidence assures me that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is safe.
I did not have time to cover validation in my opening remarks, but I wish to address it now. I heard Gillian Mackay’s speech, so I hope that she will also hear mine. When we speak of public confidence, which—I believe—Labour’s motion seeks to undermine, I fully understand why members have raised concerns about whether a full and complete validation was carried out. However, I convey to members that the assurance of safety is based not on just one metric. Through the findings of the various independent experts that I have cited and the on-going work of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, all the evidence points to the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I will provide specific detail.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?
If I have time when I conclude my point, I will come back to Mr Sarwar.
The inquiry has heard evidence on the air systems and standards that were set when the hospital first opened. It is for the inquiry to come to its own conclusions or recommendations about the hospital’s first opening. I will not prejudge those. However, the Government has been assured by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that those systems have since had further works done or have a multidisciplinary derogation in place. All critical air systems are subject to a full annual validation process, which is carried out by authorised persons and by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s authorising engineer. All systems are subject to regular maintenance checks, in line with guidance recommendations. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has implemented clear governance structures, regular audits and a quality-improvement strategy that is aligned to national standards. Any issues that require escalation are escalated to management and board committees. That structured approach ensures prompt attention and remediation and, if necessary, notification to the Government. Escalation to the Government has not been considered necessary in respect of the general wards.
All of that matters because safety must be driven by evidence and expertise. That is a principle of fundamental importance, which I urge all members to recognise.
Have I time to take Anas Sarwar’s intervention?
I can give you a little time back. Anas Sarwar, briefly, please.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. With public confidence in mind, he refers to reports on water and ventilation. Will he publish those reports, and will he ensure that they are shared with Dr Inkster and Dr Peters, so that they are satisfied, as that will also give public reassurance, given that everything that they have said in the past 10 years has proven to be true, and they may—
Cabinet secretary.
All those issues will be considered by the safety and public confidence oversight group—on which, I believe, all patients and staff have a representative. I believe that approaches have been made to the doctors whom Mr Sarwar references to ensure the confirmation of their confidence in the processes that have been put in place since the opening of the hospital.
Members will be aware that I have written to party spokespeople and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee to offer an opportunity to meet me and the co-chairs of the new safety and public confidence oversight group. I am very open to any further suggestions from members on providing additional assurances beyond those that I have set out today. As I said at the outset of my speech, we must ensure that, through Lord Brodie’s inquiry, patients, families and staff at the heart of the issues that we are discussing get the truth that they deserve. For those reasons, I again ask all members to support the Government’s amendment.
15:53
The events at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital resulted in the deaths of patients—adults and children. It is one of the worst scandals in the history of the Parliament and is on a par with the tragedy that occurred at the Vale of Leven hospital. The loss of life was entirely preventable.
I am so disappointed in Christine Grahame’s shameless and factually inaccurate speech, which I will take up with her later.
It was to the credit of Jeane Freeman that she established the Scottish hospitals inquiry after hearing about the concerns. I offer my condolences to Susan and to Jeane’s family and colleagues.
The inquiry has spent the past five years trying to undo the culture of secrecy and uncover exactly what led to the deaths of those patients. An inquiry’s job is to make sense of the past so that we can learn lessons for the future.
Back in 2015, I asked the then health secretary, Shona Robison, whether she would learn the lessons of the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry and carry out an independent audit into the new hospital. She agreed, and then she changed her mind and claimed that there was no need to follow the MacLean report’s recommendations because there was
“robust reporting and monitoring in place.”
Had there been an independent audit, it just might have saved lives.
The hospital opened too soon, when it was not safe to do so. During the first three years of the hospital’s operation, the Scottish Government was alerted to at least 14 serious infection outbreaks. Each of those reports would have landed on Shona Robison’s desk. What was the result of that robust monitoring and reporting? Did the reports get read or acted on, or is it another example of complacency that resulted in patients dying?
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
It is little wonder then that the assurances from the Scottish Government ring hollow. The lack of transparency and the toxic culture of secrecy unsurprisingly mean that very few trust the Scottish Government or the health board. Both have spent the past 10 years gaslighting whistleblowers, dismissing the concerns of families and covering up the truth from the people of Scotland.
The staff at the hospital are superb. Let me tell you how I know that.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, sorry.
Last week, I visited the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and I saw with my own eyes the challenges that remain. Yes, the staff at the hospital do a tremendous job—they are second to none and this is not their fault—but there is a problem with the building.
Patients are now supplied with bottled water. There are filters on the taps because the water is not safe. There are too many people in rooms in which the ventilation is inadequate, and air changes are half what they actually should be. The atrium, where people arrive, is filled from floor to ceiling with masses upon masses of steel scaffolding. There are yellow buckets to catch water that is coming in from the ceiling in some ward areas, and it appears that the hospital is being rebuilt from the inside out, and it is only just over 10 years old.
The key question that the Government needs to answer for patients’ reassurance and for the staff is whether the hospital is safe today.
The cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, was unable to give that absolute reassurance when we last debated the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and he cannot with confidence answer the question today.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The cabinet secretary did not take one from me, so he should let me finish my point.
We need the evidence to reassure staff and patients that the water system is safe and that the ventilation system is safe. He should publish the reports that are in his possession, because it took cross-party support across the Parliament to shake the Government out of complacency. I am grateful to the Greens and all Opposition parties for coming together again today.
The counsel to the inquiry noted that validation had only been carried out in selected wards. The Poplett report, which the Government has relied on, covered ventilation and water, but it was restricted in scope. In fairness, Mr Poplett did what he was asked to do. It was a desktop exercise covering limited wards and not the whole hospital. It relied on paperwork that was provided by the health board. It failed to consider the logs of issues and associated clinical risk, because that information was not provided.
The whistleblowers, who are the infection control experts, were not involved. The report was on the management of the system, and not the original design of the system.
In fact, Mr Poplett said that the water was the minimum required by the Scottish health technical memorandum standards. He noted:
“given the … clinical activities and patient groups involved, I would have anticipated a greater degree of testing.”
The counsel to the inquiry went on to say:
“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.”
The inquiry says that we should not wait for the conclusion of its report, because patient safety demands changes now.
In his contribution to the inquiry, Neil Gray told the inquiry that he would be surprised if the ventilation system of the hospital was not validated against any standard before opening, but it was not, was it?
Is Neil Gray surprised that Shona Robison did not seek that assurance? Is he surprised that the ventilation system has still not been validated? I have to say that I am surprised at this astonishing level of complacency. There are so many questions that the public deserve answers to.
Unfortunately, the Scottish Government cannot actually confirm whether the hospital is safe today, so I say to it: reassure patients by providing plans for protecting at-risk patients right now; validate the ventilation and the water throughout the hospital; and make sure that the validation reports are shared with whistleblowers and are published. Families and whistleblowers deserve nothing less.
That concludes the debate on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Community Policing