Chamber and committees

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Thank you.

This petition should be left open, with something put into our legacy document about how the next committee could take it forward. I do not think that the issue that it concerns has concluded yet, and a new iteration of this committee should definitely look at it.

That is useful. Thank you.

I turn now to transport and how people get to and from the NHS estate. We know that there is now a great number of electric vehicles in the fleet, which allow staff to go from site to site. However, with regard to staff getting to hospitals and arriving at work, what are we doing to ensure that people are able to make alternative choices in getting to health and social care settings and to enable a shift to low-carbon travel, especially in remote and rural areas?

I am sure that folk around the table will be very much aware of the parking issues at hospitals across the country. The committee has previously discussed the letters that go out in many health boards telling people to arrive 10 minutes before an appointment if they are arriving by car because of the issues with parking.

Other committee members have covered most of the issues that I wanted to cover. Others have mentioned concerns relating to the need for international medical graduates, because they go into specialties that are not usually preferred by UK graduates. The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin has raised concerns about the potential limitations for career development. What equality monitoring is the Government planning to undertake to detect any adverse consequences that the bill might have for international medical graduates working in the NHS in Scotland?