Official Report 523KB pdf
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (Patient Infections)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s admission of a likely link between issues with the water supply at Queen Elizabeth university hospital and patient infections. (S6T-02845)
First, I offer my deepest condolences to all the families who have loved ones who are affected by the issues that we are discussing today relating to the hospital’s inquiry. Ministers take seriously all concerns about patient safety and patient care. That is why we established a statutory public inquiry to investigate in detail all matters relating to those cases of infection and to provide patients and families with the answers to their questions and concerns.
The closing statements from core participants were published by the inquiry on Friday 16 January. The contents of those statements will now be considered as part of the final inquiry hearings this week, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on the proceedings at this stage. We look forward to Lord Brodie’s final report and recommendations, which will be forthcoming in due course.
I declare an interest as I am a practising national health service general practitioner.
The unforgivable cover-up of infected water that led to the unnecessary deaths of cancer patients, including two children, is the most appalling and disgusting hospital scandal to engulf our health service. After more than a decade of denial, we have had to drag the health secretary here today after NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted at the 11th hour, in the most sleekit way, that the water system at the Queen Elizabeth hospital caused infections in cancer patients. Victims include Gail Armstrong, Molly Cuddihy and 10-year-old Milly Main, whose mother said last week that she had been fighting for answers for six years.
As early as 2015, multiple hospital inspections exposed the fact that water at the hospital was not safe and that there was a high risk of subsequent infection. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has spent years covering that up, silencing whistleblowers, gaslighting families and betraying the trust of patients. The calculated attempts at hiding the truth have denied the victims’ families closure.
How many more times must we say, “Never again”, before this culture of secrecy and cover-up ends? What is the health secretary doing to hold past and present senior management at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to account for their lies, failures and dereliction of duty?
On the question of transparency, I note that the Government brought forward the public inquiry so that families—some of whom I have met, and to whom I pay tribute for their work and their diligence following the trauma that they have undoubtedly experienced—can get answers to the questions that they are posing, as Dr Gulhane sets out. It is because we have instigated a public inquiry that, I believe, we are getting to the truth.
It is important that we allow the public inquiry the space to consider its final conclusions, so that the final report can be considered before we determine any final considerations. I am duty bound as a minister to do that—there are strict rules about seeking to influence, commenting on or pre-empting public inquiries—and it would be best for the Parliament to do likewise.
The issues with the water supply have not been solved. A whistleblower told me today that the pressure is so bad that dishwashers have been out of action for months, and taps stop running water monthly. It is time for honesty, transparency and accountability—and it should not have taken a public inquiry to get here.
For more than a decade, successive Scottish National Party health secretaries have presided over a culture of secrecy and cover-up at the expense of patients. SNP ministers must take responsibility for this scandal. They have refused to intervene or to hold senior management responsible, despite mounting evidence and patients demanding the truth.
Nicola Sturgeon opened the hospital, Shona Robison was health secretary at the time of Milly Main’s death, and John Swinney served in senior positions throughout. For the sake of the victims, will the Scottish Government make clear who knew what and when? Will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care commit today to saying that anyone who was involved in a cover-up, even if they were senior Government ministers, will face justice, including for corporate homicide?
Those issues are currently under the live consideration of a public inquiry and an investigation by the Crown. It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on or pre-empt those investigations.
We take the issues of transparency and patient safety extremely seriously. That is why we instigated the statutory independent public inquiry that Lord Brodie presides over. As at all hospital sites, there is a comprehensive system of clinical oversight and patient safety monitoring at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. No information has been reported through our robust governance arrangements that questions the hospital’s safety. While the inquiry continues, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is required to ensure that its hospitals remain safe for patients, and it will continue to closely monitor a range of data and quality indicators to demonstrate that.
I add to that the work that has been done to establish the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland—that is Karen Titchener, who I have had the pleasure to meet and with whom I now meet routinely—which underlines the Government’s commitment to patient safety and transparency for those who are impacted by these issues.
It is right to remind members that, when the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened in 2015, Nicola Sturgeon was the First Minister, Shona Robison was the health secretary and John Swinney was the finance minister. Their fingerprints are all over this. We need to know what they knew, when they knew it and exactly who pressured the health board to open the hospital before it was safe, causing the death of children.
We know that the SNP cares only about announcements, rather than delivery. We have experienced the ferry with painted-on windows that has yet to sail, and now a hospital that ministers pushed to open when it was not safe to do so. Who does the cabinet secretary believe is responsible for the deaths of children at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital?
Those matters are subject to live public inquiry and live Crown Office investigations. It would be completely inappropriate for ministers to comment on or narrate what is going on around those issues. Jackie Baillie talks about keeping things secret, but it is the contrary: there are live public inquiries, one of which was instigated by the Scottish Government, and the Crown investigation will clearly have to report. It would be completely inappropriate for ministers to seek to intervene or suppress those inquiries, or to do anything other than allow those processes to continue. I think that you would expect nothing less of a Government minister, Presiding Officer.
The issue with the water supply has been going on for a number of years, and the hospital cannot function without its water supply. What has changed to make the water supply safe, and what has been put in place to make sure that those who are in hospital remain safe?
As I set out in response to the question from Mr Whittle’s colleague Dr Gulhane, all hospital sites—Queen Elizabeth university hospital included—have a comprehensive system of clinical oversight and patient safety monitoring, and no information has been reported through that governance process that questions the hospital’s safety. These are matters that require the attention of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and all health boards in ensuring the safe and effective operation of their sites.
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a director of WhistleblowersUK.
In relation to the scandal, I note that there were whistleblowers in 2017 and as early as 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has admitted that whistleblowers were subject to recrimination and retaliation; they were ignored and much worse besides. It is clear that there is something very wrong with the whistleblowing culture in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, so I ask the cabinet secretary not to hide behind any on-going procedures and to order an immediate review of whistleblowing culture and processes in all of Scotland’s NHS boards.
Please answer in relation to the substantive question.
The issue at hand regarding the hospital’s inquiry is not an issue of procedure, and there are clear rules around ministerial comment or ministers seeking to undermine or in any way influence a public inquiry. I hope that Mr Kerr understands that.
However, in general, I note that Mr Kerr and I have corresponded on the matter regularly. I have set out very clearly my expectation of the national health service’s culture, speak-up culture and attention to patient safety to ensure that, when people—whether they are staff, patients or anyone else—come forward with concerns or complaints, they are treated seriously, the concerns or complaints are dealt with timeously and effectively and patient safety always comes first.
United States Tariffs
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of US tariffs on Scotland’s economy, in light of the announcement this weekend of President Trump’s decision to impose new tariffs on the UK. (S6T-02839)
We are deeply concerned about the President of the United States’ proposed use of tariffs to change Greenland’s future. Greenland’s future should be decided by the people of Greenland, and threats of tariffs should not be a bargaining chip in place of reasonable dialogue between international partners.
Any US tariff increase on the United Kingdom will be a concern for Scottish exporters, but, so far, the legal texts that would be necessary for the US Administration to implement such a policy have not been issued. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the precise economic impact. Needless to say, any further tariffs would be deeply damaging for jobs and economic growth across Scotland, given that the whisky industry has already reported the loss of 1,000 jobs last year. We will continue to engage with key partners on the issue.
The US is Scotland’s largest export market, and many businesses will be concerned by this move by Washington. Will the Deputy First Minister set out what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that Scottish businesses can identify new markets and can thrive in spite of the punitive tariffs?
Evelyn Tweed is absolutely right to highlight how critical the US is for Scotland as an export market. International trade is crucial to our economic growth and resilience. We will continue to promote the export growth of Scottish businesses in both current and emerging markets in response to the increasing global uncertainty.
There are a number of examples of how we are building trading relations around the world, including through our participation in the Osaka expo in 2025, which opened new opportunities for businesses in Japan. Later this month, the second Scotland week to be held in the United Arab Emirates will further boost trade and investment ties. Plans for increasing our engagement with India are advancing well, too. We have also approved and financed 19 trade missions led by chambers of commerce through our international trade partnership programme.
European leaders have stated their full support for Greenland and for the Kingdom of Denmark. The Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission have warned that tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and risk creating a dangerous downward spiral. Does the Scottish Government support their calls for international law to be upheld, for NATO allies to respect the sovereignty of its member states and for the future of Greenland to be decided solely by the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark?
Tariff increases by the US would be a real concern for Scottish exporters, and well-established sources are detailing those concerns right now. I welcome Greenland’s clear statement of its right to self-determination and the endorsement of that by European leaders and by the UK Government. Decisions concerning Greenland can be made only by the people of Greenland, and we are clear that all nations must abide by the international rules-based system.
According to research from the Common Wealth think tank, Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in Europe. Dependence on overseas direct investment not only bleeds Scotland of the wealth required to fund our public services but pressures Scottish politicians, such as our First Minister, to appease foreign capital by lowering taxes, weakening workers’ rights and eroding environmental standards. Such reliance leaves Scotland vulnerable to dramatic geopolitical change, such as Trump’s latest tariffs. Given that threat, does the Deputy First Minister agree that what Scotland needs is not further private foreign ownership but a strong domestic industrial strategy?
I reject much of that characterisation of the Scottish economy, and I certainly reject any suggestion that the First Minister is under any pressure but that from the voters who have democratically elected the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland’s economy is growing and prosperous and that we are able to support workers across the country.
The initial question was all about exports, which is the direct polar opposite to a question about foreign direct investment. We have made clear that we are supporting Scottish exporters. We are an island nation and are reliant on ensuring that the goods and services that are produced to such a high standard here in Scotland reach markets across the world. Those markets include not only North America but the European Union, and this Government continues to back a return to the common market.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to hospitality that I have received from the Scotch Whisky Association. That association warns that the impact of tariffs has already cost more than 1,000 jobs in Scotland and is costing the industry £20 million a month and that further tariffs would be devastating for the Scottish economy. Just a couple of months ago, the First Minister went to Washington to meet President Trump and came away feeling very optimistic. What has happened to that optimism? Is there anything that the First Minister can do to reach out to President Trump and build on that warm relationship to try to get that threat removed? What can the Scottish Government do with its budget to support industries here that might be impacted by tariffs?
I will begin by answering the first part of that question. It was with the support of the Scotch Whisky Association that the First Minister made as much progress as he did in his direct engagement with the President.
Murdo Fraser will appreciate that the work to secure an agreement and to nail down that progress is an issue for the UK Government. I think that the First Minister did an admirable job in highlighting the issues, particularly those concerning reciprocal damage. The issue is not only about economic damage to and job losses in the whisky industry, which I outlined in my first answer, but about the damage that is replicated in the United States because of the reciprocal relationship with the bourbon industry.
Regarding the progress that we will now make, the member will appreciate that the First Minister is looking for any and all opportunities and has used such opportunities to make the case for whisky, and will continue doing so, but we are in extremely unprecedented and unstable times.
Members will appreciate the time. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
This goes far beyond export interests. The latest economic threat from Trump follows on from his attacks on the sovereignty of Greenland, his unilateral military action against Venezuela, his support for genocide in Palestine, his attempts to wreck international climate efforts and the brutal violence of his regime against his own citizens. Surely it is clear that democratic countries can no longer treat this lawless US President as a security partner.
Does the Government agree that, in that context, a formal visit by the UK’s head of state would only feed Trump’s ego and would continue a failed policy of appeasement against this extremist, and that the visit should be cancelled?
Please answer on the substantive question, Deputy First Minister.
The First Minister has been very robust over the weekend in particular, and he was robust again last night in expressing very clearly his view that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland to determine. The First Minister’s primary interest is in respecting the rule-based international system and protecting Scottish interests.
In relation to the first question that I was asked, which was largely about export, this is about how to protect Scottish jobs and interests and how to protect communities across Scotland who are at risk right now.
The way to beat economic bullying is to make trade easier. With the threat of tariffs looming, Scotland, the UK and the EU must unite in their stance against US protectionism. On a practical level, will the Scottish Government join the Scottish Liberal Democrats in calling on the UK Government to implement an immediate cut of 5 per cent to whisky duty to show that we stand behind our whisky industry and to show President Trump that free trade will always trump isolationism?
I confirm to the member that, in previous budgets, we have been very robust in representing the Scottish whisky industry and calling for fair duty and excise. That is on the record, and that goes back a few years, when letters in my name were drafted to the UK Government expressing that position.
We feel that it is particularly important to support the industry right now as it is seeing a massive impact from the tariffs, with significant job losses and economic damage on a weekly basis. The figures are quite clear, and now is the time to support our domestic production of whisky because of those international risks.
Grooming Gangs
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that grooming gangs are targeting children living in residential care homes in Scotland. (S6T-02850)
Sexual abuse and exploitation of children are abhorrent crimes with devastating impacts on victims and their families. The first part of the independent national review that I announced last month will focus on rigorous, detailed scrutiny of local authorities’ assessments of the threat and risk of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation.
The review, which will be undertaken by the four independent inspectorates, will assess local areas’ understanding of and response to known risk factors, including children who regularly go missing from home or care. If any harm or risk is identified during the review, it will be escalated immediately through the appropriate channels, including to Police Scotland as required, and will be acted on. I intend to update Parliament more fully on that work in February.
The sinister revelation that grooming gangs are putting mobile phones into residential care homes exposes once again how much remains unknown and how sophisticated these vile predators actually are. Whereas a full inquiry would shine a light on all the dark corners of this nefarious, vicious practice, this Government contents itself with an ill-defined review. In the light of the latest revelations, surely the cabinet secretary now concedes that what is needed is not a review but the full inquiry that everyone is demanding.
I thank Mr Kerr for his question and his on-going interest in and pursuit of these matters. I was very pleased that he attended the cross-party meeting that I held last week with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in which we heard an update from Professor Alexis Jay, Police Scotland and the four independent inspectorates that will be leading the work.
I want to be clear again today that the Government is not ruling out further inquiries. I made that substantive point in my statement to Parliament in December. However, there is a need for an evidence base, and that is exactly why the inspectorates are taking the work forward appropriately. To that end, as I intimated in my first answer, I will update Parliament further in February.
I think that the cabinet secretary’s response will disappoint so many.
She listed, and places great reliance on, those in the field. Last September’s initial report of a national child sexual abuse and exploitation sub-group
“found little evidence that training in Scotland adequately equips professionals with the skills needed to respond ... current practice often relies on children verbally disclosing their abuse before decisive protective action is taken”.
What meaningful, substantive action has the Government taken to protect Scotland’s children in the months since its own experts gave it that warning? If something was done, why has it not worked?
I thank Mr Kerr for raising that substantively important matter. I am also mindful that, every time we discuss these topics, victims of child sexual abuse might be listening, and it is important that we discuss the issues in a sympathetic and appropriate manner that is reflective of victims’ trauma. I am mindful of that, particularly in my own role.
Children disclose or report allegations in relation to child sexual abuse in a range of ways. Given my experience as a teacher, I know how that works in a school. However, four different independent inspectorates will be looking in clearer detail at the ways in which that works within their relevant responsibilities.
I want to come back to Parliament with a fuller update on the substantive point that the member raises, which is hugely important. I have been clear throughout my time in Government, in responding on the Government’s approach to this issue, that we need to hear from victims of child sexual abuse in order to ensure that we can learn from their experiences, improve our response and eradicate that type of behaviour in our society.
Given the importance of the issue, it is important that we work on it on a cross-party basis, and that is exactly the approach that I will continue to take. At the meeting that we had last week, which included Mr Kerr, I suggested that we have a fuller update for MSPs in March that will allow for a consistent flow of information to members on the Government’s work on the topic. I will be able to share more with members on that in my statement in February, and then again in March, before Parliament dissolves.
All sexual abuse and exploitation of children is horrific, and it is important that we treat the issue sensitively when we discuss it.
Can the cabinet secretary set out more detail of what the national review will involve? What more can she say about the evidence and information that it will collate and what will happen when it is received?
I want to be absolutely clear that the four inspectorates that are leading the national review are independent of Government. They will show no fear or favour in the work that they have been instructed to undertake urgently and at pace, and, crucially, they have powers to compel public authorities to provide the information that they request. Those powers will be critical to the success of the review. Public agencies will not be able to refuse to co-operate, and the inspectorates will help to obtain the evidence that is needed to inform future decisions and investigations.
Once the independent national review is complete, the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is independently chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, will consider the findings and provide expert advice to ministers regarding our next steps.
As I set out previously, if any harm or risk is identified during that process, that matter will be escalated, including to Police Scotland, as appropriate.
There is a lot of interest in this sensitive issue. I believe that Scotland had not up till now addressed the need to interrogate the data to assess the scale of the problem. Given that it could take months or years to do such an assessment and we have not—I think—been given a timescale for it, and given that we already know that children in the care system are at the highest risk, I ask the cabinet secretary to elaborate on the immediate actions that the Government will take to identify and protect the children who are most at risk. If there is any validity to the reports that Liam Kerr refers to, there is a need for urgency, and we cannot wait to protect children.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on those reports themselves. Of course, I have read the press article in question, and those points have been put to my officials. However, any criminal activity would be a matter for Police Scotland to investigate.
In relation to timescales, I set out in my previous answer that I will come back to Parliament in the coming weeks, in February, to give a fuller update. At the meeting that Ms McNeill and other MSPs attended last week, a range of different agencies set out some of their work on next steps in relation to their responsibilities, and I have committed to provide a further update for MSPs in March. There is a range of different points in relation to the timescales that we are currently working on, but I hope to say more on the detail on next steps in the statement to Parliament in the coming weeks.
The serious organised crime task force has acknowledged that the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation is hidden and underreported and that national monitoring is weak. Given that the Government admits that it does not know the true scale of the abuse, what specific evidential threshold from the national review does the cabinet secretary need to establish a full national inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland?
I note that we have only been able to engage with Ms Dowey’s audio. We will certainly look into that issue, but I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could respond to the question.
The first part of Ms Dowey’s question related to the way that we record and report the crimes that we have discussed today. We should also reflect on the power imbalance that often exists in relation to child sexual exploitation, which is also a causal factor in underreporting. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review, but as I have set out today, I will give Ms Dowey and MSPs a fuller update in February, when I have received an update from the agencies on their progress in relation to their statutory responsibilities and the review that I announced in December.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Point of Order