Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Official Report 948KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Professor Sam Eljamel (Independent Clinical Review)

To ask the Scottish Government what role the national clinical director has had in relation to the clinical review process for former patients of Professor Eljamel. (S6T-01765)

The national clinical director is not involved in establishing the independent clinical review. Although Professor Leitch is part of the same directorate as those officials, he is not one of the officials undertaking that work.

Scottish Government officials are progressing the necessary work to establish both the independent clinical review and the public inquiry. Once established, those will be carried out and chaired independently of both the Scottish Government and NHS Tayside.

The Courier newspaper reported today that Professor Jason Leitch has been employed by NHS Tayside since September 2012 and has been receiving a Scottish Government salary under the service level agreement. As yet, there has been no full disclosure of exactly what Professor Leitch’s NHS Tayside role has been since 2012 or of whether Professor Leitch has taken any action, even indirectly, in relation to the Eljamel case. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that?

As I have just explained, Professor Leitch is not involved in the work to set up the independent clinical review. Professor Craig White is progressing that work, which is at a very advanced stage.

On his terms of employment, the national clinical director is employed on standard NHS consultant terms and conditions by NHS Tayside and works for the Scottish Government under a service level agreement. That is typical of the arrangements through which the Scottish Government can draw on specialist knowledge from the NHS. Most of our clinical advisers working for the Scottish Government are engaged through a service level agreement or are on secondment from a health board in exactly the same way as Professor Leitch.

So that it is absolutely clear, am I to understand that Professor Leitch has given no input whatsoever, even on an indirect basis, to any of his staff who have been involved in the Eljamel case?

I hope that the cabinet secretary can understand that the most recent revelations in the United Kingdom Covid inquiry have created considerable concerns among former patients of Eljamel, who consider that it would be totally inappropriate if Professor Leitch was in any way involved, even indirectly, in the process.

As I have explained, Professor Leitch is not directly involved in the matter. Back in September last year, the chief medical officer and the national clinical director agreed that the most appropriate way to establish the review would be for officials who already have an established understanding of the issues relating to Eljamel to do that. That is why the matter was passed to Professor Craig White, who was asked to take forward the work to establish the independent clinical review process.

The cabinet secretary has focused on the independent one-to-one reviews. When will those begin and, more crucially, when will they be completed? Will he also give assurances, given the real resistance from the victims, that Professor Leitch has not been involved in the establishment of the public inquiry and is not offering any advice to Government officials regarding the process?

Professor Craig White is taking forward the public inquiry and the engagement around that. As I have previously stated in the chamber, as has the First Minister, that work is at a very advanced stage, and we have been engaging with the Lord President to appoint a chair for the public inquiry.

Alongside that, we will be appointing an individual who will be responsible for carrying out the individual clinical reviews for patients who wish them. I cannot give the member a completion date, because it is down to individual patients whether they choose to participate in the programme. The completion point will be dependent on the numbers of people who wish to take part in it.

The prospective chairs have been engaging with one another to look at how the whole process will be managed collectively.

Pictures have emerged in The Courier today of a smiling Sam Eljamel. I know that that has insulted many of his victims. Those victims are also quite angry that we do not seem to be any further forward on the public inquiry. The cabinet secretary has indicated that we are at an “advanced stage” on the individual case reviews. Is he at an advanced stage in relation to the public inquiry? When might we get an update?

Yes, we are at a very advanced stage in appointing a chair, as the First Minister stated in the chamber in response to a question from, I think, Liz Smith the other week. As I mentioned earlier, there has been engagement between the two prospective chairs on how the clinical review and the public inquiry will intersect with each other. It is important that we get that right.

I can understand that patients who have suffered at the hand of Eljamel will be disgusted at seeing pictures of him continuing to practise in Libya. Of course, any decision to pursue the matter on a criminal basis would be for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and it would be for them to consider pursuing the individual. I can understand why people would be deeply hurt by seeing that the individual continues to practise in another part of the world.

This case has highlighted Professor Leitch’s employment status as a secondee. Is he regarded, from a management perspective, as a civil servant, and is he subject to the civil service code?

I cannot give that detailed information, because that is an operational matter for the civil service, not for ministers. Professor Leitch’s employment arrangements are exactly the same as those for other clinical experts and NHS employees who provide the Scottish Government with advice under a service level agreement. How the civil service code is applied is a matter for the civil service directly. I would, of course, expect an appropriate mechanism to be in place for anyone who undertakes civil service responsibilities, but that matter is not for ministers directly.

---

Single-use Vapes

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the announcement from the United Kingdom Government that it plans to ban single-use vapes to protect children’s health, whether it will outline what action is being taken in Scotland. (S6T-01768)

The Scottish Government was the first Government in the UK to commit to taking action on single-use vapes, so I was delighted to announce yesterday that we plan to introduce a ban on single-use vapes, alongside raising the age at which people can be sold tobacco and restricting vape flavours and packaging, in order to protect children and young people, public health and the environment. That will help us to create a generation free from tobacco addiction, tackle youth vaping and take us closer to a tobacco-free generation by 2030, in line with our “Tobacco and Vaping Framework”, which was published in November.

We continue to work with the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward the plans across the four nations.

I have been really concerned by the dramatic rise in levels of youth vaping, given the evidence from experts, including physicians and ASH Scotland, on the health impact of e-cigarettes and vaping and the negative impact of nicotine on young people.

As the founder and, now, the co-convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on lung health, I recently heard from a mother how her school-age daughter has experienced anxiety, aggression, agitation, depression, withdrawal and shortness of breath since starting vaping. She has also missed school. What steps will be taken to minimise the health impacts of youth vaping, given the announced ban on single-use vapes?

I recognise the issues that Emma Harper has raised, having met some fathers to talk about exactly those issues. The Scottish Government has already been taking action to address the issues, as we committed to doing in the programme for government.

This month, we laid a Scottish statutory instrument in the Parliament to enable provisions in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016 to be enacted, including the ability to tighten rules on the advertising and promotion of vaping products.

In December 2023, we launched our “Take Hold” marketing campaign, which educated parents, carers and children about the dangers of vaping and about the harms and risks of nicotine addiction. We have been hearing very positive information about the campaign’s reach. A key aspect of the campaign involved speaking to children in order to understand what they would like us, as policy makers, to do. I spent a very informative morning discussing exactly that with the Children in Scotland advisory group.

In addition to the health concerns, there are clear short-term and long-term environmental impacts of single-use vapes, with communities, including communities in Dumfries and Galloway, being blighted by them, as they are dumped and discarded on our streets. Does the minister agree with me and charities such as Keep Scotland Beautiful that the ban on single-use vapes will benefit our environment, as well as keeping our communities safer and cleaner?

Absolutely. On Friday, I had the privilege of joining one of the classes at Sunnyside primary school in Alloa, which is part of the Children’s Parliament. The children complained to me that they are seeing vapes in spaces for children, which really upset them.

Last year, the Scottish Government commissioned an urgent review of the environmental impact of single-use vapes. The review found that up to 26 million disposable vapes were consumed and thrown away in Scotland in just one year. An estimated 10 per cent of them were littered, and more than half were incorrectly disposed of. The ban will tackle the detrimental impact that single-use vapes have on our environment, local communities and young people.

Can the minister set out timescales for the introduction of the ban and what the associated repercussions are expected to be if the ban is not complied with? How will the Scottish Government work with shop owners and others who sell such products so that they can safely dispose of their stocks?

As I said in my first answer, we are working from a four-nations perspective and we await the legislation from the UK Government, with which we, as a Government, have been working closely. We already have legislation on enforcement, but we will be looking to tighten it as best we can.

We must ensure that disposal is done in the most environmentally friendly way, which is why I am working closely with my colleague Lorna Slater.

I place on record my thanks to the campaigners and organisations involved, and to the Daily Record for working with me and other MSPs in campaigning for the ban. The proposals are a huge victory for them, and I thank the Government for the positive conversations that I have had with it throughout the campaign.

As we move forward, other tactics might emerge in the evolution of vapes. What conversations is the minister having with colleagues across the UK on how we can anticipate some of the changes and ensure that any legislation that we introduce appropriately tackles any measures that we might see?

I echo Gillian Mackay’s thanks to those who campaigned for a ban on disposable vapes.

We aim to implement a ban at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that the health and environmental benefits are realised as soon as possible. As I have said, we propose to align the coming-into-force dates of our regulations with those of the other three nations, where feasible, to provide certainty for businesses and consumers. We will legislate separately in Scotland to enact a ban, as it will be taken forward using powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that are devolved to the Scottish ministers.

That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment for those on the front benches to organise themselves for the next item of business.