Chamber and committees

There is a very difficult judgment here, convener. I assure the committee that, in coming to that judgment, I have wrestled with the issue significantly, because I understand exactly the points that you raise. As I set out in my opening statement, there is a careful balance to be struck between the nature of a due process to be undertaken and the need for there to be transparency about the way in which the issues are handled. You will note in the information that I have shared with the committee that there is a difference between the approach that will be taken should a complaint be upheld or partially upheld and the one that will be taken should a complaint not be upheld. No details will be shared about the substance of a complaint if it is not upheld.

I recognise that it is a careful balance. As I have indicated, we are setting out proposals to the committee. They have been the subject of dialogue with our trade unions and our staff. If the committee is minded to give me feedback on that question or other questions, I will of course consider it before we come to final decisions about the application of the proposals for changes to the procedure and the ministerial code.

It would have to be an objective assessment. In these circumstances, we are putting in place a set of arrangements to try to address any such experiences. The whole approach goes back to part of what I said in my introductory remarks: we aim to create a working environment in which there is no place for bullying. We will set out in the advice and guidance what we consider to be examples of bullying. We cannot be precise about absolutely everything, but all organisations are able to set out their reasonable expectation of what bullying might look like. There are proactive efforts to create a climate and culture that mean that such behaviour is not in any way present in the working experience of members of staff. Should concerns be raised, there is, as I said earlier, a keenness to ensure that those issues are resolved as early and as proactively as possible. Ultimately, if members of staff feel that they have the basis on which to make a complaint, and if they feel that the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved, they can do so, and we have a procedure that enables that to be addressed.

The best way to answer that is by reference to the standards of behaviour that we have set out in the guidance to members of staff and ministers. That guidance will be set out in the ministerial code and in the standards of behaviour that are expected for the undertaking of Scottish Government business. I am happy to make those available so that the committee can cast its eye over them. The approaches give a clear distillation of our expectations of what the workforce will be like and what the experiences of members of staff should be like. If they are not of that order, conduct can be resolved through the various means that I have set out.

Nothing will be shown in the report in December, as things stand. There are no complaints with the Government, so we will have none to report on in December.

That is correct.

In relation to the detail of previous issues, in June 2022, we responded to two freedom of information requests confirming that two investigations had been carried out in respect of three complaints since 2007. Our judgment was that that was the information that it was appropriate for us to disclose, given the points that I have already made to Mr Lumsden.

I will tell Douglas Ross about the situation that we are facing and experiencing. We have the best pay deal for health and care staff on offer in the United Kingdom; we have the best record of A and E performance of any health system in the United Kingdom; and we have record numbers of staff in the national health service.

What is not helping is the folly of Brexit, which has reduced the number of staff available, because of the loss of free movement.

The other fact that is not helping is that the United Kingdom Government is not recognising the public spending pressures that exist because of the inflation that it has fuelled by its stupid economic decisions. As a consequence, public budgets are under enormous pressure. If Douglas Ross wants to make himself useful, he can ask the United Kingdom Government to increase the budget for the Scottish Government, so that we can support the health service to a greater extent and start addressing the issues facing members of the public.

I recognise the seriousness of the issue that Liz Smith has raised, and I express my regret to anybody who has suffered as a consequence of the practice of Professor Eljamel. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has already met Liz Smith to discuss the issue, as she knows, and he has also met some of the people who have been affected by the actions of Professor Eljamel.

As Liz Smith will know, because the issues were professional ones that affected Professor Eljamel’s clinical practice, NHS Tayside commissioned a review from the Royal College of Surgeons into his practice and, as a consequence, restricted his clinical responsibilities.

The health secretary has made it clear to NHS Tayside that he expects it to meet the people who have been affected and, where possible, to answer any questions that remain unanswered, given the fact that the issues have already been thoroughly examined by the Royal College of Surgeons at the request of NHS Tayside.

In relation to the circumstances that Mr Ross has recounted, it is, of course, of the deepest concern that a member of the public has had to wait that long for access to an ambulance and to the accident and emergency department. I say to Mr Ross that the median time for the arrival of an ambulance is of the order of 45 minutes, so the circumstances that he has recounted are unacceptable.

There is congestion in A and E departments, which is caused by the volume of presentations and by the obstacle that is created by the number of patients who are in hospital but who should be discharged. That is a focal point of significant activity across Government: to ensure that we reduce delayed discharges. Indeed, the health secretary and I spent a significant amount of our time yesterday in discussion with partners about practical steps to address that.

In relation to the question of improvements in the national health service, the Government has invested £600 million in the winter resilience support package; we are helping to recruit 1,000 healthcare staff to support staff in their activities; and we are investing £50 million in urgent and unscheduled care, to help to improve A and E performance. When it comes to the progress that has been made, Mr Ross should be familiar with the fact that the longer waits for treatment are reducing significantly in relation to the two-year position, which was one of the priorities that was set by the health secretary.

I accept that there are challenges in the national health service, but I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of staff who are working phenomenally hard on the back of a pandemic that Mr Ross never acknowledged in its significance—[Interruption.]

Given the absolutely totally chaotic turmoil of ministerial resignations and dismissals in the United Kingdom Government, what a laughable proposition to put to me this morning!

I have been active in politics for many years and a member of parliament for a quarter of a century. We know that someone has run out of road when they start playing the man and not the ball on an issue, which is what Douglas Ross is doing just now. [Interruption.]