Under the SNP Government, we are clearly seeing progress in our NHS—[Interruption.]

Although Labour talks about privatisation and Reform wants to charge people for using the NHS, only the Scottish National Party is committed to defending Scotland’s NHS. It is investing to improve it through bold new initiatives such as the GP walk-in centres. [Interruption.]

I, for one, want to thank our hard-working NHS staff for all that they are doing—unlike our Tory colleagues, it seems. Given that Labour cannot bring itself to do the same, will the First Minister remind our Labour colleagues what improvement we have seen under his leadership in the past year?

As I referenced earlier in my speech, Lord Brodie has already instructed someone to make inquiries about the safety of the hospital, and they reported that they felt that the safety of the hospital’s water system was being maintained.

It is absolutely fundamental that inquiries can operate transparently and reach conclusions that are not influenced by ministers or any other type of vested interest.

When Lord Brodie spoke ahead of the first diet of hearings in the hospitals inquiry, he spoke first of patients and their families. He said that his first priority was to understand their experiences and to use that to inform subsequent lines of investigation. Therefore, I will finish as I began, by bringing my focus back to them. I sincerely hope that, when the inquiry’s final conclusions and recommendations are published, the patients and their families can finally gain a sense of closure and of being heard, and that they feel as though their questions have been answered. For their sake, Lord Brodie must be given time and space to consider all the evidence, complete his work and get to the truth that they deserve.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I will begin, as others have, by expressing my deepest sympathies to all those who are grieving the loss of a loved one in the circumstances that we are discussing. Patients, families and whistleblowers have shown incredible tenacity and dignity as they have shared their testimony, campaigned tirelessly for justice and made every effort to ensure that the truth is determined.

A hospital should be a safe place where people seek not only medical help but reassurance, care and comfort throughout their treatment. Relatives should feel confident leaving their loved ones in the care of the NHS. That safe place can be provided only in a trusted environment. Patient safety is one of the Government’s key priorities, and it is fundamental that the patients and families who use our hospitals are reassured that they are accessing safe clinical environments. As an MSP who has constituents who attend the Queen Elizabeth university hospital as patients as well as constituents who work there, it is critically important to me that they can have confidence in the ability of the hospital to operate safely.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has rightly offered

“a sincere and unreserved apology”

to patients and families affected by the events under investigation in the hospitals inquiry. However, I know that, for many people, including colleagues across the chamber, that is simply not enough without thorough and comprehensive assurance.

It was reassuring to read the independent evidence of the expert Andrew Poplett, who provided evidence to Lord Brodie’s inquiry in September last year. He concluded that the hospital’s current procedures for managing the water system are safe, suitable and currently extremely well managed. He also concluded that significant improvements have been made in the hospital’s water system.

However, the fact remains that people have been badly let down in the past, and lessons must absolutely be learned as a result. Only robust investigation will get us answers to ensure that families get the truth that they want and need. That is precisely why the Scottish Government established a public inquiry, led by Lord Brodie, which I have every confidence will provide the scrutiny and the truth that is required by the families affected and by everyone else.

While the hospitals inquiry is under way, it is completely inappropriate for ministers to comment on or narrate what is going on around the issues that it is investigating. Not only would it be completely inappropriate for ministers to seek to intervene or suppress any inquiries, pre-empt their findings or do anything other than allow the process to continue, it would also be unlawful.

The inquiry is being held under the UK-wide Inquiries Act 2005, and I will take a moment to discuss that, as we are talking about a well-established piece of legislation. Before it came into force, at least 10 different pieces of legislation had been used to provide a statutory basis for inquiries in the UK. The 2005 act and the subsequent Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 have a range of important provisions, including giving an inquiry’s chair the power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents; allowing for evidence to be taken under oath; a statutory duty to secure public access to evidence and documents; and the ability for core participants to recover reasonable legal expenses, helping them to meaningfully participate in proceedings. For those reasons, the decision to establish the Scottish hospitals inquiry under the 2005 act was therefore a significant and important one.

Perhaps the key provision in the 2005 act is that the initial establishment of the terms of reference is the last point of ministerial input or influence before any inquiry concludes. Once that happens, inquiries are completely independent of ministers. That is written into the legislation for very good reason, and it is essential that they are able to operate in a truly independent manner.

When my Opposition colleagues lined up to welcome the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport’s intention to establish a statutory inquiry under the 2005 act, I remember Mr Sarwar in particular stressing that the inquiry had to be genuinely independent, and he was absolutely correct. However, the point should be very familiar to colleagues, as it has been clearly and repeatedly stated in the chamber, not least by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray last March, when he made a statement on the hospitals inquiry’s interim report.

We have a brief supplementary from Paul Sweeney.

I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance this morning and for their evidence to the committee. I will now suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses.

10:45

Meeting suspended.

10:53

On resuming—

Item 3 is consideration of an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument. The purpose of the draft order, which requires approval by resolution of the Parliament before it can become law, is to establish a licensing scheme for the provision of certain non-surgical procedures that pierce the skin and which do not require the input of a healthcare professional. It will ensure that such procedures are provided only in appropriate settings, and it will designate the activity as an activity for which a licence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is required from 6 September 2027. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the order at its meeting on 20 January and made no recommendations in relation to it.

We will now have an evidence-taking session on the order with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health and supporting officials. Once our questions are answered, we will proceed to a formal debate on the motion.

I welcome Jenni Minto, Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health; and, from the Scottish Government, Rachel Coutts, lawyer, and Owen Griffiths, legislation team leader. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you. The committee does indeed have a series of questions for you, and we will move straight to them.

I have a couple of questions on enforcement and rogue operators. How does the Scottish Government plan to tackle unlicensed and covert operators, and will new enforcement tools or national protocols be developed?