Chamber and committees

I will begin, as other members have, by extending my thanks to my wonderful friend and colleague Mark Ruskell for introducing the bill. Mr Ruskell has been a long-time champion of this issue, and it is wonderful to see his efforts and the efforts of many tireless campaigners coming to fruition. Having been through the member’s bill process myself, I know that it cannot be overstated how this process can take over a member’s entire life.

A huge thanks should also be extended to the campaigners, the non-Government bills unit and Mark Ruskell’s staff team, who have processed hundreds of responses to his consultation. Many members will know how personally committed Mark Ruskell is to the welfare of greyhounds, and no wonder. For too long, greyhounds have suffered cruelly and unnecessarily in the name of gambling.

Some contributions this afternoon have been outright confusing. Rhoda Grant simultaneously claimed that the bill is unnecessary because there is no racing and because anyone who wanted to open an oval track would have other barriers to overcome, and that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include other tracks that would also have to overcome those same barriers. How on earth Davy Russell can say that the bill will not improve welfare is incredible, when there is clear evidence on how often these dogs are injured.

These dogs make incredible pets and they should be treated kindly and humanely. In its report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission listed

“several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track … the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog’s life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over.”

That same report concluded that

“Greyhound racing is not inherently dangerous for the dogs involved.”

The report also cited the oversupply of puppies as a significant harm. It is estimated that around 6,000 greyhound puppies are culled in Ireland each year as a result of overbreeding. That is heartbreaking—these are dogs, not commodities. An end to racing is the only way to ensure that the suffering ends. Regulation cannot protect greyhounds from the inherent risk of injury and death or address wider welfare concerns.

The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s data shows that the number of trackside deaths has increased annually since 2022. Injuries also remain far too high. Some injured dogs are made to race, compounding their injuries and making it harder for them to heal. According to Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, injuries and long-term conditions include fractures, muscle, ligament and tendon injuries, ruptured skin wounds and osteoarthritis.

The evidence is clear. Without a ban, greyhounds will continue to suffer excruciating injuries that impact the length and quality of their lives. Research has shown that the turns or bends of an oval racetrack provide unique risks for racing dogs for a number of reasons, including asymmetric training and racing, centrifugal force and congestion. The risk of death and injury is built into how the tracks operate.

The bill will help greyhounds across Scotland. It will help them to live full, fulfilling lives, as every dog deserves to do. So, for Bluesy, Bob, Kass and the always wonderful Bert, it is time to back the bill and end greyhound racing for good.

I will begin, as other members have, by extending my thanks to my wonderful friend and colleague Mark Ruskell for introducing the bill. Mr Ruskell has been a long-time champion of this issue, and it is wonderful to see his efforts and the efforts of many tireless campaigners coming to fruition. Having been through the member’s bill process myself, I know that it cannot be overstated how this process can take over a member’s entire life.

A huge thanks should also be extended to the campaigners, the non-Government bills unit and Mark Ruskell’s staff team, who have processed hundreds of responses to his consultation. Many members will know how personally committed Mark Ruskell is to the welfare of greyhounds, and no wonder. For too long, greyhounds have suffered cruelly and unnecessarily in the name of gambling.

Some contributions this afternoon have been outright confusing. Rhoda Grant simultaneously claimed that the bill is unnecessary because there is no racing and because anyone who wanted to open an oval track would have other barriers to overcome, and that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include other tracks that would also have to overcome those same barriers. How on earth Davy Russell can say that the bill will not improve welfare is incredible, when there is clear evidence on how often these dogs are injured.

These dogs make incredible pets and they should be treated kindly and humanely. In its report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission listed

“several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track … the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog’s life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over.”

That same report concluded that

“Greyhound racing is not inherently dangerous for the dogs involved.”

The report also cited the oversupply of puppies as a significant harm. It is estimated that around 6,000 greyhound puppies are culled in Ireland each year as a result of overbreeding. That is heartbreaking—these are dogs, not commodities. An end to racing is the only way to ensure that the suffering ends. Regulation cannot protect greyhounds from the inherent risk of injury and death or address wider welfare concerns.

The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s data shows that the number of trackside deaths has increased annually since 2022. Injuries also remain far too high. Some injured dogs are made to race, compounding their injuries and making it harder for them to heal. According to Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, injuries and long-term conditions include fractures, muscle, ligament and tendon injuries, ruptured skin wounds and osteoarthritis.

The evidence is clear. Without a ban, greyhounds will continue to suffer excruciating injuries that impact the length and quality of their lives. Research has shown that the turns or bends of an oval racetrack provide unique risks for racing dogs for a number of reasons, including asymmetric training and racing, centrifugal force and congestion. The risk of death and injury is built into how the tracks operate.

The bill will help greyhounds across Scotland. It will help them to live full, fulfilling lives, as every dog deserves to do. So, for Bluesy, Bob, Kass and the always wonderful Bert, it is time to back the bill and end greyhound racing for good.

We have heard many times from Government that we need to let the Scottish hospitals inquiry do its work, and to respect its outcome. I absolutely agree with that. Only then can we learn the lessons of what went wrong and how we can make sure that it never happens again.

However, I believe that we need to take action now to restore confidence in the hospital and in the board. We need to communicate clearly and reassuringly to patients, families and staff that the hospital is safe. We need to let people know that if they raise concerns, those will be taken seriously. We need to reassure patients and their families that if they seek treatment from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, they will be cared for by its incredibly hard-working and compassionate staff.

We also need to look to the future and consider how we ensure that the whole sorry episode is not repeated.

I confirm that we will support the motion at decision time.

Although extensive remedial work has been done to the building, people will have been frightened and worried by the series of headlines about infections. It is up to both NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the Scottish Government to reassure people that, when they are treated for a serious illness such as cancer, they will be safe. The poor communication between the health board and patients and their families has been a stand-out revelation during the inquiry. Likewise, clinical staff deserve to know that they are working in a safe environment, so that they can get on with the incredible work they do. Their efforts should not be hampered by working in a building that threatens their patients’ safety. Frankly, they should not have to worry about that. It is not their job to do so, and they have been failed too.

Whistleblowing staff have also been let down. One microbiologist said that she felt discouraged from speaking up at infection control meetings. Another senior doctor said that she was advised by a senior colleague to “pipe down” or she would find things hard professionally. She has previously said that she had been flagging concerns about the building since 2014 and was advised not to put anything in writing.

Staff need to know that, when they raise concerns, they will be listened to. Although NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has accepted that its previous criticisms of the whistleblowers were neither helpful nor fair, it is clear that the whistleblowing system failed, and that will not be conducive to others coming forward with concerns in the future. The health board has a lot of work to do to assure staff that whistleblowers will be protected and, most importantly, taken seriously.

Much has been made of the fact that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has admitted that pressure was applied to open the hospital on time and on budget, and it is now clear that the hospital opened too early. The board has since clarified that there was internal pressure, but that begs the question of how we have reached the point that a health board feels so under pressure to deliver that it sacrifices patient safety for the sake of remaining on budget. What series of decisions were taken, and how can we prevent anything like that ever happening again?

The on-going inquiries should be allowed to conclude in their own time, and any conclusions need to be acted on quickly and comprehensively. However, before those recommendations are available, we need to ensure that anyone attending the hospital can be fully confident that they are safe. The Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care must lead the way on that.

I move amendment S6M-20561.3, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges that recent revelations surrounding the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital will have been distressing for patients, their families and staff; understands that this could create uncertainty and fear regarding the safety of Scotland’s hospitals and negatively impact staff morale; recognises that patient privacy has to be given the greatest consideration in the publication of any materials, and calls for the Scottish Government to outline how it will urgently restore confidence into the services delivered by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.”

As others have, I begin by paying tribute to the tireless efforts of the families who have campaigned so hard to shine a light on what went wrong at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. They have often faced shocking treatment and have been labelled as troublesome or difficult when they were just trying to get justice for their loved ones. The focus of my contribution will be on the impact on the families, the current and future patients and the staff who are working at the hospital, all of whom may be suffering extreme distress while the revelations about who knew what and when are made public.

Having to go through what the families have gone through, let alone seeing one’s family stories and grief played out in public, is something that I am sure none of us can even imagine. Having to fight to have their voices heard and to go through a long public inquiry has also been traumatic. I cannot imagine how it must feel for them to be watching what is going on in the Parliament.

Clearly, things have gone wrong and there have been issues with water and ventilation, as well as issues around decision making. The question now is how we demand accountability and start to rebuild the trust that has been so horribly fractured by the episode. In order to understand the impact that the incidents have had on trust, we need to examine the testimonies of those who have been affected.

Cancer diagnoses are life-changing, traumatic events. Patients and their families should not have to worry about the safety of the hospital where they are being treated. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted in its closing submission:

“A patient diagnosed with such a condition, and the families supporting them must have confidence in the buildings and the systems within them. They should be able to devote all of their attention to their treatment, not concerns about the environment in which that treatment takes place.”

Unfortunately, as we all know, that was not the case for some patients at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. In a recent article on the BBC News website, one mum, whose daughter contracted an infection when she was little, said:

“A hospital is supposed to be your safe place where you go to ask for help”.

She said that she still feels traumatised and lives in fear that her child will relapse and have to go back into hospital. As a parent, having a child admitted to hospital because they are unwell is frightening enough, but to have the weight of the fear of another infection hanging over you must be unbearable. Tragically, that mother and another mother whose child caught an infection say that they still live with survivor’s guilt due to the fact that their children are alive while others died. No parent should have to carry that burden.

After having experienced such pain, fear and trauma, having then to campaign to get the truth about what happened to your child is unthinkable. We owe it to those families to get to the bottom of what happened, to not use this as a political football but to shine a light on the inquiry, pay heed to its findings and keep asking questions of the Government and the health board about how we can ensure that this never happens again.

It is critical that we ensure that people have confidence that, if they attend appointments at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, it is safe. We also need to ensure that whistleblowing is safe, which I will come back to later in my contribution.

With new sites planned, such as University hospital Monklands in my region, we need to restore public confidence in the processes and reassure people that the new hospitals will be fully up to standard. We need to improve the culture across all boards because, as the Labour motion notes, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is not the only one to have been hit by scandal. There are consistent issues around governance and whistleblowing, with staff not being taken seriously. We have lots of policies and procedures around whistleblowing but, clearly, that does not always translate to staff feeling listened to or safe to raise concerns. Many will still be concerned about their jobs and careers.

Clearly, this is an emotive subject and it has been an emotional debate. Patients and families have experienced trauma and suffering in a place where they should have felt safe. Tensions are running high, which is understandable, but what is most important is that we learn from this and ensure that it never happens again. Yes, we have to get to the bottom of what went wrong, and yes, there should be political accountability, but we do not serve the interests of the families that are at the heart of it when we play political point scoring with their stories. I fear that some of them will be disappointed with some of what has happened in this debate.

The privacy of those who have suffered should also always be respected. Their stories should be told if they want them to be, in order to show the impact that the scandal has had on them, but in a way that respects their trauma and does not compound it. We will no doubt continue to debate this matter in Parliament, and I urge members to think about their tone and how they speak about those very personal and painful experiences.

The inquiry has taken a trauma-informed approach, which is important, because the families have suffered enough. I look forward to the publication of the inquiry’s final report so that the families can get the answers that they deserve. As others have said, I hope that it will bring some level of peace, although it will never make up for what they have endured.

That work is on-going, but the Government and the board can act now to reassure patients, families and staff. I hope that, in his closing remarks, the cabinet secretary can confirm that the hospital is safe. It is vital that that message is not lost in the revelations about infections and scandals.

Anyone who is unwell should feel entirely confident about seeking help. No one should be put off treatment because they are worried about a hospital making them ill. However, my saying that will not make a difference, and both the board and the Government have a lot of work to do to restore the trust that has been broken.

Staff will also have been traumatised by finding out that the building where they work and where they care for patients was not safe. To give their patients the best possible care, they need to know that their environment is not a risk to them. The staff that raised concerns have been betrayed by the board and, despite the board’s admission of guilt, it will take some time to address the hurt and repair the rift. We must not lose sight of the fact that, throughout the episode, clinical staff have tried to do what is best for their patients. They have cared for them to the best of their ability and tried to raise concerns when the building that they were working in made that impossible. I pay testament to the doctors, nurses and other clinical staff who have worked hard for their patients in trying circumstances.

Given the huge public interest in the issue, my amendment seeks to ensure that no family will be able to be identified through the release of materials unless they wish to be. Some families have chosen to come forward and share their stories and they should be commended and supported, but those who either have not wanted to do that or do not feel able to should also be respected. My amendment also seeks to acknowledge the pain of patients and their families, while urging the Scottish Government to restore confidence in the services that are being delivered at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I hope that members will support my amendment at decision time.

There is often very little that unites football fans. However, in recent weeks, supporters of Celtic, Falkirk and Motherwell have displayed banners backing my calls for a £25 cap on away tickets. Those calls have also been backed by the Scottish supporters collective. Football is meant to be for everyone, but at a time when the cost of living is ever rising, some fans are being priced out of attending. Price caps are in place in England and in many other European countries. We know how important attending games is for people—it reduces loneliness, and that is not to mention the wonderful work that the clubs do for the wider community. Clubs would be nothing without their fans. Will the First Minister join me in making calls to cap away ticket prices?

Some 120,000 people will attend games over the weekend, but we currently have a system in which, other than at a few clubs, fans struggle to have their voices heard. At a national level, that is even more difficult. Whether through ticket prices or fan ownership, we need to bring our sport closer to the people who make it what it is. In the months ahead, I plan to host a summit with supporters groups from across the country to discuss how we democratise Scottish football at every level and make it truly for the fans. Will the First Minister join that summit and help to put fans at the heart of our national game?

There is often very little that unites football fans. However, in recent weeks, supporters of Celtic, Falkirk and Motherwell have displayed banners backing my calls for a £25 cap on away tickets. Those calls have also been backed by the Scottish supporters collective. Football is meant to be for everyone, but at a time when the cost of living is ever rising, some fans are being priced out of attending. Price caps are in place in England and in many other European countries. We know how important attending games is for people—it reduces loneliness, and that is not to mention the wonderful work that the clubs do for the wider community. Clubs would be nothing without their fans. Will the First Minister join me in making calls to cap away ticket prices?

Some 120,000 people will attend games over the weekend, but we currently have a system in which, other than at a few clubs, fans struggle to have their voices heard. At a national level, that is even more difficult. Whether through ticket prices or fan ownership, we need to bring our sport closer to the people who make it what it is. In the months ahead, I plan to host a summit with supporters groups from across the country to discuss how we democratise Scottish football at every level and make it truly for the fans. Will the First Minister join that summit and help to put fans at the heart of our national game?