Official Report 400KB pdf
14:05
Allegations Concerning Former Chief Nursing Officer
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that a former chief nursing officer offered the parents of Sophia Smith £20,000 and a holiday following her death in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in 2017. (S6T-02884)
I offer my deepest condolences to the Smith family, who so tragically lost their daughter Sophia in 2017. I cannot begin to imagine the pain that Sophia’s family has gone through, and I appreciate that the inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital will have reopened those wounds.
We established the inquiry that is being led by Lord Brodie so that families such as the Smith family can get the truth that they deserve. It is vitally important that the independence of Lord Brodie’s inquiry be respected and that he be free to come to his conclusions without any attempted political interference.
The matters in Jackie Baillie’s question relate to issues that are under consideration by Lord Brodie and, as she knows, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment further. However, I again repeat to the Parliament, as I have said during the past four weeks, that the Scottish Government treats patient safety with the utmost importance. That is why there is a Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, and it is also why we established a new safety and public confidence oversight group for the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.
These matters are in the public domain. My question concerned an employee of the Scottish Government, and it is entirely appropriate that the cabinet secretary should respond. The allegations against the former chief nursing officer, Fiona McQueen, are very serious, and they must be investigated. We know that the allegations tally with the evidence that was given by Dr Christine Peters to the Scottish hospitals inquiry, who said, quoting the chief nursing officer:
“At one point she said that she could not understand ‘why [the health board] had not just offered the families 50 grand which is a trip to Disneyland, rather than deny that there had been harm caused’.”
Does the cabinet secretary believe the accounts of Dr Peters and Sophia’s parents, or does he believe Fiona McQueen and her current lack of recollection?
It is not for me to judge; it is for the independent public inquiry, which is chaired by Lord Brodie, to get to the truth of these matters. We establish public inquiries so that they can get to the truth in a way that is independent from on-going commentary or political interference. Such independence is at the heart of the credibility that is gained by having independent public inquiries. I believe that these matters are under consideration by Lord Brodie, and it is right that he comes to his own conclusions without any interference.
I asked a simple question of the cabinet secretary, which is whether he believes Sophia’s parents and Dr Peters or whether he believes Fiona McQueen. Sophia Smith’s family has effectively been offered a bribe rather than the truth. The Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal showed how a culture of cover-up has grown under the Scottish Government’s watch.
The cabinet secretary’s predecessor, Jeane Freeman, committed to a review of the culture in the national health service at the same time as announcing whistleblowing champions, which was very welcome. Why has no successive cabinet secretary taken that proposal forward in the past five years?
I am well aware of the work of the independent national whistleblowing officer, because I met the new incumbent of that post last week, and I have also met all the local whistleblowing champions. I take the culture of our NHS and social care services incredibly seriously.
We must have a speak-up culture. We must support patients and staff to be able to speak up and comment on patient safety issues, and their concerns must be taken seriously. I have clearly put forward that I expect board chairs and chief executives to follow that approach, and I will not just take a dim view if they do not—I will insist that there be a culture of openness and transparency in our health service. That is the route through which the safest possible patient care will come through.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.
A grieving family has alleged that the former chief nursing officer and current chair of the Scottish Police Authority offered them £20,000 and a holiday following the death of their baby. She even went as far as to suggest that that was the maximum they might expect if they pursued compensation through the courts. She must answer questions on these alleged repulsive and crass comments. If she was this heartless over the death of a baby, how can we trust her to be chair of the SPA or to hold any senior role in public life?
I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Criminal Justice Committee on the matter. Has the cabinet secretary spoken to her about the issue, and does he agree that the chair of the SPA should appear in front of the Criminal Justice Committee?
It is up to members of the Criminal Justice Committee to determine who appears before it. Lord Brodie and the public inquiry are actively considering the questions that Jackie Baillie and Sandesh Gulhane have asked. It is right that we allow them the space to come to their determinations, including on the questions that have arisen from the evidence to the public inquiry, so that the families who are at the heart of the matter, including the Smith family, get the answers that they deserve. That is why we constituted the public inquiry in the first place.
This is not commentary or political interference—the cabinet secretary is absolutely wrong to say that. The inquiry should not be used as a shelter for wrongdoing that whistleblowers are revealing in the here and now. “Speak up and be ignored” cannot be the policy of the Scottish Government.
My question is very simple: who is investigating the allegations and who will uncover the truth? Cabinet secretary, please do not respond by saying, “The inquiry.” This is a current issue that must be explained now.
The reason that we have a public inquiry is to get independent answers to those questions. Nobody can hide behind a public inquiry. A public inquiry gets to the truth without fear or favour, and without any political slant being attached to it. This independent, judge-led process has been established so that the families can get to the truth. Families must be at the heart of this—they deserve answers about what happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, as well as at the hospitals in Edinburgh that are part of the inquiry. We await the judgment of the inquiry, and we allow it to do its job without interference.
This is hardly a unique situation. Nearly 10 years ago, my constituent Fraser Morton was in a similar situation and was offered compensation not to take forward his case. Why are we continually finding ourselves in a situation in which people would rather pay compensation than take the opportunity to learn from mistakes? That culture must change.
We are seeking to learn lessons from what has happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The public inquiry was established to get to the truth and give the families the truth that they deserve.
It is up to health boards to consider and determine any compensation actions in consultation with patients and their representatives. We should always seek to learn lessons, which is why we have taken a more robust approach to significant adverse event reviews and, in this case, why we established a public inquiry.
Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission Report
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the final report and recommendations of the sentencing and penal policy commission, in light of the reported high levels of public concern regarding the findings. (S6T-02885)
The Scottish Government welcomes the publication of the independent sentencing and penal policy commission’s considered and evidence-based report “Justice That Works”.
Prison will always be necessary, but we must accept the need to tackle an increasing prison population. Many of the recommendations in the report reflect what is known: that community-based sentences are more effective than short prison sentences at reducing reoffending, which means fewer victims and safer communities, which is something that we all want to see.
I will make a statement to Parliament on Thursday to present the Scottish Government’s initial response to the report, acknowledging that the breadth of recommendations will require detailed consideration and prioritisation.
In 2016 and again in 2023, the man who threatened to kill me was sent to prison. In 2022, he was arrested in the street leading to our home. My wife was terrified. Under the proposals in the report, that individual would not receive a custodial sentence at all. This report is a gift to criminals and a slap in the face to victims of crime across Scotland. It has been produced by people who are far more concerned with offenders than with the harm that they cause.
Will the cabinet secretary rule out implementing any recommendation from the report that would remove or restrict the use of custody in cases involving credible threats of violence—yes or no?
I am deeply sorry and concerned to hear about the member’s experience. I cannot imagine how that would have felt for him or the distress and trauma that it would have caused his dear family.
I say in all seriousness that victims are paramount in our considerations and that public safety will always be paramount to me. I say to the member that I am very sorry that I cannot reduce this debate to the point of giving a knee-jerk or two-dimensional response, because the issues are complex and significant. The crux of the matter to me, as has always been the case, is that a high prison population does not necessarily equate to a safer Scotland.
That is why I commissioned the report, so that we could look sincerely and deeply at the evidence. I know that, at the end of the day, we all want safer communities, fewer victims and fewer crimes. To have that, we have to have the courage to follow the evidence and engage with victims and communities about what will work to make them safer.
Locking up violent criminals does make Scotland safer. That is where the public is on the question, and I think that the cabinet secretary knows that, because my experience is not unique. Across Scotland, there are tens of thousands of victims. I have seen people who harmed them, threatened them and robbed them released early or not imprisoned at all. Victims deserve a justice system that takes their safety seriously and puts public protection first. Scottish National Party policy has consistently moved in the opposite direction, weakening judicial discretion and prioritising offenders over victims. Victims will find the report terrifying.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to a formal consultation with victims and victims organisations and guarantee that their views will carry decisive weight? She used the word “paramount” earlier. Will their views be paramount in the Government’s response—yes or no?
I want to assure Mr Kerr that I spend much of my time engaging with victims and victim support organisations on an on-going basis. It is important to note that the commissioners also engaged with victims.
From my engagement with victims, I know that at the very core of a victim’s concerns is that they do not want the experience that they had and the crime that was committed against them to happen to anyone else. That means that justice being served is—yes—about prevention, punishment and deterrence, but it is also about rehabilitation and reintegration, bearing in mind that the majority of people who are incarcerated will one day return to their community.
On that note, with regard to public opinion, the commission’s report says that 92 per cent of people agree that prisons should help to change behaviour and 55 per cent agree that prisons should be for those who commit the most serious offences.
Although the Scottish Government is taking action to tackle the challenge around the prison population, we continue to see a large number of short-term prison sentences being imposed. What assessment has the Government undertaken on the contribution of those sentences to some of the challenges that we see in the prison population?
Although the longer-term trend has been away from shorter-term sentences, the most recent figures show that 73 per cent of sentences are of 12 months or less, so a high number of short sentences continue to be imposed, despite the presumption against them. As an illustrative example, on 2 February, there were 562 prisoners with an overall sentence of 12 months or less.
There are complex reasons for that, and we are working to understand how the current presumption operates. We recognise that there might be merit in exploring whether further steps should be taken. We know that short sentences disrupt lives, including family relationships, housing, employment and access to healthcare—all things that help to reduce the risk of reoffending—and therefore put pressure on our prisons and, in turn, our communities.
The sentencing commission’s report suggests that only suspects with a prospect of being sent to jail for more than two years following conviction should be held on remand. The report says:
“Remanding people accused of minor crimes, or those who fail to attend court due to disorganisation, is disproportionate”.
It also points out that the
“High use of remand”
often results in
“loss of housing, employment, income and family stability”.
Does the Government support that view of remand? Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government plans to improve ways in which those who are bailed into the community are supported and monitored, to give reassurance to victims?
There are a lot of detailed questions in what Ms McNeill said. I reassure her that, given the breadth and complexity of the recommendations in the report, we will consider them carefully.
I am acutely aware that our remand population is currently higher than it was in pre-Covid times. Ms McNeill will be aware of the new bail test, which was finally implemented in May this year. There have been some changes to bail and, in particular, progress has been made on assessment and bail supervision. However, further work needs to be done on bail support to increase the prospect of people meeting the requirements. There is considerable progress, but there is much more to do on the use of technologies.
I will come back to Parliament in a few days, when we can continue the discussion and debate in the collaborative tone that Ms McNeill has exemplified. The work that the commission has done is independent, and it is important that we can all pursue these matters together.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Business Motion