Like Ms Whitham, I am a sitting councillor, but with City of Edinburgh Council. That is recorded in my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I will speak in support of Douglas Ross’s amendment but, before I do so, I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I reaffirm my support for the principles that are outlined in the Labour motion. However, issues with patient safety in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital go beyond some of the heartbreaking tragedies that Labour members have outlined. I want to speak further about the burdens that front-line staff face, which may contribute significantly to the on-going problems with the UK’s second-largest acute hospital.

Behind the scenes, unnecessary pressures are often placed on staff. I say to Ms Mackay that no one in the chamber blames clinicians. I want to talk about the staff who are directly involved in delivering patient care in a fast-paced clinical environment. Through unyielding, arduous, management-driven controls and processes or unbalanced procurement and budget control processes, those staff find themselves in distressing situations that distract their attention from delivering safe patient care. Those processes mean that staff are too often challenged by frustrated senior colleagues because equipment is not available for them to use.

The outcome of that may be that the patient’s procedure is cancelled. Why? Because loan paperwork has not been completed days in advance of the planned procedure. Why? Because the one and only device in the department had been opened, sometimes in error, for a previous planned procedure. Scheduled procedures have clashed because there is only one piece of equipment for the entire department, or it has not been returned in time from sterile services due to tight turnarounds from cases the day before.

Perioperative staff and those in theatre are at the front line and face such hellish but completely unavoidable challenges daily, and sometimes even multiple times a day. I assure members that the frustration that is felt by the entire multidisciplinary team when that happens is palpable. I know that that such issues are not unique to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Staff should not have to face those issues when balanced, sensible and cost economic solutions are available to managers to approve.

We say with one breath and in one debate that we want to support staff’s health and wellbeing and then go on to thank them profusely for their heroic efforts. However, as I have said before, we need to do more than offer them our thanks and gratitude. Why do we not look to remove some of the completely unnecessary pressures in their day-to-day jobs and allow them to focus on their patients?

We are calling for a second independent public inquiry into the ministerial response to avoidable deaths at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. A comprehensive independent inquiry would identify all the areas that cause risk to patients in the hospital and would accelerate the implementation of preventative and mitigating actions. The SNP planned, delivered and ran the hospital and today we have heard that percentages are more important to it than patients. It must take full responsibility for this disgraceful situation.

On outcome 2?

This question, which regards the disability element, is directed to Gavin Macleod, whose report and presentation spoke quite acutely of how disabled people have been impacted to a greater extent than other groups. What one thing could we do to rectify the situation with regard to that group more quickly than with regard to the less disadvantaged groups? How can we support the reluctant returners to sport?

I have questions on funding.

Thank you.

My first question is for Steve Walsh, who mentioned scrambling around for little pockets of money. Kim Atkinson mentioned that 90 per cent of funding is cascaded through local authorities—I should declare that I am a councillor in the City of Edinburgh Council. We all know the pressure that local authorities are under.

We have a letter here from Maree Todd that states that

“the investment in sport and active living”

is being doubled

“to £100 million a year by the end of”

the current session of Parliament, which might not be enough, given some of your comments today. I want to ask about that level of investment specifically, and about what confidence you have that the investment is reaching the intended recipients, given that local authorities control its distribution.

My question follows on quite nicely, I think. It is about eco-ableism, and is mainly directed to Gavin Macleod. We have heard about a number of environmental policies on active travel and redesigning streets, which might make it more difficult and challenging for those with a disability to access them. What are your thoughts on that? Do you feel included in those discussions?

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement and the many attachments that came with it.

In October, the Scottish Government held a debate on a person-centred approach to mental health and substance abuse. Today, we have heard again about the importance of getting more people into the treatment and recovery that is right for them. However, the problem with the idea, and the ideology, of person-centred care is that, in reality, the care that people receive is system centred or organisation centred. Patients generally get what the system or organisation is willing and able to deliver, not the care that they want or need. What guarantees can the minister give us that person-centred care will be centred on the person and not on the ability of providers to deliver a service?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When I asked question 2, I should have declared an interest as an existing councillor in Edinburgh.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to help tackle the reported affordable housing crisis in Edinburgh. (S6O-00431)