Chamber and committees

We certainly want the independent inquiry, as set up by the SNP’s health secretary at the time, to get to the truth of what happened at the Queen Elizabeth and at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People. As the inquiry’s remit states, that will ensure that

“any past mistakes are not repeated in future NHS infrastructure projects”.

Without prejudicing that inquiry, I whole-heartedly welcome the acknowledgement before it by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that the board’s response to and behaviour towards the whistleblowers who raised substantive and serious concerns were wholly unacceptable.

I am pleased that there has been a change in NHS GGC policies on how it responds to staff who raise issues of concern. I will not go into the specifics of what the inquiry has been looking at, but I encourage the Labour Party to consider the people who work on the front line in our health service and to see how it functions every hour of every day. If flaws, problems, challenges, issues, mistakes or miscalculations exist and impact on the delivery of a safe and patient-centred health service that serves our people, staff should and must be listened to; they should not be denigrated and ignored or have senior management question their professionalism.

I worked in the national health service and in healthcare in the USA for many years, as a registered nurse and clinical educator. I know that the plans and processes that are put in place can go wrong. What is meant to happen on paper is not always what happens in the real world of day-to-day healthcare. Through risk management processes, significant adverse event and near-miss reporting and root cause analysis review, steps are taken to put measures in place to identify, fix and learn from those issues. It is the staff who need to be the most respected and the most involved when it comes to that crucial function.

Without referring specifically to the on-going inquiry, I must say that, if a management team has found itself contacted by numerous whistleblowers on a single subject, it is clear that that team has badly managed its on-going relationship with staff, which should be at the core of the continuous improvement of our health service. That the end result of the breakdown of that relationship is, in the case of QEUH, an inquiry that has now lasted many years should be a lesson to every organisation in the country, but particularly in our health service, in how important listening to staff and whistleblowers is. It took courage and bravery for people such as Drs Redding, Peters and Inkster—health professionals who raised their concerns with management—to speak up and, as the board stated in front of Lord Brodie,

“it is accepted”

that the culture

“did not place appropriate emphasis on listening to staff and encouraging the raising of concerns.”

I ask any health service staff who are watching the debate—every single one of the staff who are, on behalf of our country, saving lives and making our society a healthier place to live in, whether they work in maintenance, cleaning, catering or nursing, or are allied health professionals or doctors—if they have concerns about patient safety, see something that needs reporting or hear something that does not sound right, to please speak up and report it, because we all want a health service where the thousands and thousands of people who are in our NHS are listened to. I hope that there is unanimity in the chamber at least on that point.

I do not think that I have time—I do not think that there is much time in hand.

The inquiry was set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is United Kingdom Government legislation. Last week in the chamber, our First Minister said:

“Lord Brodie must have the opportunity to consider and reflect on the evidence and to set out his conclusions.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2026; c 13.]

I completely agree with that.

I must say, as someone who represents a constituent involved in campaigning for health services in my region, who was the target of fabricated and unauthorised quotes on a Labour Party leaflet—which, incidentally, was still being delivered through letterboxes last week, despite Labour’s promise to withdraw it from circulation—

Yes.

In recognising that Finlay Carson’s original amendment and variations thereafter have sought to address some of the red tape around the routes for clean scallop shells to be repurposed and taken out of the waste stream, my amendment 153 seeks to ensure that clear formal guidance is produced to help tackle any confusion and ensure a workable route to the market and the further use of scallop shells where they are properly treated and responsibly managed.

Ahead of my lodging the amendment, folk were asking me, “What are you using scallop shells for?” The shells are made of calcium carbonate, so they can be used for various things such as aggregate for roads, as a liming agent for changing the acidity of soil, or for feeding chickens. There is an opportunity to look at how we manage the waste shells when they are properly treated and responsibly managed.

My amendment would require ministers to issue and publish detailed guidance within one year of the provision coming into force. Ministers would be required to consult the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Food Standards Scotland and other appropriate bodies or persons before any guidance is issued.

SEPA would be required to have due regard to the guidance. As an example that was put to me of what the guidance could contain, it might specify that no more than 1,500 tonnes of shells would be permitted for temporary storage.

I know that some individuals and businesses in the sector, including those in the South Scotland region that I represent, have highlighted issues with regard to dealing with large stockpiles of clean scallop shells, in particular in relation to storage. In response, I have engaged with SEPA and the Scottish Government to discuss those issues, and I know that they are working with businesses and individuals to agree straightforward ways of resolving issues with large stockpiles of scallop shells within the existing legal framework.

SEPA has also advised that it is working directly with seafood producers to explore new markets for scallop shells and to support access to those, and to help resolve issues around temporary storage. It is trying to reduce administrative burdens to a minimum for those who are managing shells properly, which we all want to see, not least businesses such as West Coast Sea Products in my region. I put on the record my thanks to that company for its engagement on the issue. I am aware, however, that West Coast Sea Products already has markets for its shells—that is not its particular issue.

However, while we can all agree that those who are managing shells do not need onerous authorisation conditions, it is nevertheless crucial that there are conditions in place to ensure that they are managed properly to avoid environmental harm. That includes avoiding issues with odour and pests, which I do not think any of our constituents would thank us for.

My understanding of Finlay Carson’s amendment 154 is that it would not allow for those safeguards. I have also engaged with South of Scotland Enterprise to ask it to help West Coast Sea Products in any way that it can with advice or funding as part of the approach to addressing the issues. Additionally, I note that, in its report on the delegated powers that were added to the bill at stage 2, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee found, in relation to Mr Carson’s stage 2 amendment, that

“the proposed power appears unnecessary in many respects and legally unworkable in others. The Committee therefore recommends that an alternative solution to the issue the amendment seeks to address be found.”

My amendment, if passed, will fully address all the concerns that were raised by the committee about Mr Carson’s amendment at stage 2, and it will address similar concerns with amendment 154.

I move amendment 153.

I want to go back to general practice. The Scottish graduate entry medicine programme—ScotGEM—has been really successful for Dumfries and Galloway with regard to retention. Can you say a wee bit about the programme? It is unique to Scotland. Is it successful?

How does the budget support direct community support, including optometry and pharmacy services? I know that we tried to move care away from hospitals to optometrists, for instance. Does the budget support that?

Good morning. I am interested in picking up on what you said about walk-in GP centres. You mentioned the one that was announced in Edinburgh. The budget assigns £36 million of funding for walk-in GP clinics. Is that funding for additional staff or for other costs that are associated with the pilot? What further funding might need to be provided to implement the policy?

You mentioned that the walk-in centres will support already established general practice. The British Medical Association was pleased with how that was negotiated with GPs and is positive about it. How will the draft budget support GP practices more broadly?

I have a quick supplementary on prevention. It is not only the health portfolio that helps to support prevention; the housing portfolio also does so. We know that if people have good housing, it helps to ensure that they have better lung health, as they are not living in damp homes. Can you say a bit about the cross-portfolio working that is required in order to support prevention measures in health?

We are talking about guidance rather than putting something into the bill, because procedures will evolve and there will be changes to chemicals or microneedling, which I had never heard of before we started on the bill. Do we need to allow flexibility because procedures will evolve?