Seòmar agus comataidhean

Once again, I pay tribute to the patients and families at the heart of the inquiry, who have already faced immense pain and trauma. I also commend the work of the inquiry team and Lord Brodie. It is vital that we allow the inquiry to deliberate and consider its findings, which we will respond to in full.

The Scottish Government provided all relevant evidence to the inquiry, which is being considered by Lord Brodie in advance of his final report and recommendations later this year. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

However, I note that it is a matter of parliamentary record that Ms Robison responded on the matter via written correspondence to Jackie Baillie as a member of the Health and Sport Committee on 24 February 2015. I refer Ms Baillie to the parliamentary record.

I hope that we all agree that the independence of public inquiries must be protected from any influence by politicians. I respect that independence. This is not about hiding behind the inquiry; it is about allowing the inquiry to carry out its business free from political interference.

We established the public inquiry because we want to give the families at the centre of this answers to the legitimate questions that they have raised. Lord Brodie has the opportunity to call witnesses and garner evidence. We have fully co-operated with the inquiry and have been fully transparent in relation to all the requests for information to be supplied to the inquiry. It is important that Lord Brodie and the inquiry team are allowed the time and space to come to their conclusions, which we will respond to imminently.

Rona Mackay is absolutely right. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, this Parliament put in place a range of powers that are available to any established public inquiry. Those wide-ranging powers, which include powers to compel witnesses and the production of all relevant information, are extensive, and they enshrine the independence of the public inquiry. They ensure that any inquiry is protected from any undue influence. It is therefore right that we allow Lord Brodie the time and space to deliberate fully on the evidence before the inquiry, and we look forward to responding to its findings in due course.

I have set out that the matters that are before us are the subject of an independent, judge-led public inquiry. It is important that that inquiry is allowed to carry out its business without interference from any politician and that it does so with the full evidence before it. The Scottish Government has provided all relevant material that has been asked of us by Lord Brodie’s inquiry, and we intend to continue that co-operative approach. We resolve to respond to the recommendations when that inquiry concludes.

Jackie Baillie knows full well that, while those live inquiries are on-going, it would be completely inappropriate for Scottish ministers to intervene or comment. She also knows that it is a matter of public record from evidence led at the inquiry that information was withheld from the Government by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Given the evidence that is before the inquiry, it is important that it is allowed to pursue its deliberations free from political interference. That is the tenor of a public inquiry, as it should be, and we will obviously take the inquiry’s recommendations seriously.

At the centre of all this are the families, to whom my heart goes out and who should be, above all else, at the forefront of our considerations. We instigated this independent, judge-led public inquiry so that the families’ questions could be answered. I believe that, as a result of the evidence that is being led through the public inquiry, we are getting to the truth of the matter.

There are several elements in Ms White’s question. I have met Karen Titchener, the Patient Safety Commissioner, to discuss the issue with her. As I sought to do in my first answer to Ms White, I gave her my reassurance about our response to the Women’s Rights Network’s report on Scotland.

I expect all health boards to report incidents of sexual assault or harassment, and I expect suspected criminality to be reported to the police. Local boards have a local reporting obligation, on which I have clear expectations.

Ms White will be familiar with the Government’s policy on single-sex wards. It remains our policy that we expect boards to provide single-sex spaces where that is possible.

I agree with Jackie Baillie’s first point about the importance of social care in ensuring that people receive the right care in the right place at the right time, and ensuring that there is proper flow through the system. That is why the collaborative response and assurance group, which involves COSLA, the Scottish Government and health and social care partnerships, is so important. We all have a part to play in making sure that the system works effectively.

It is important that employers honour their statutory responsibilities and obligations on pay. I have just left a meeting with Councillor Paul Kelly and COSLA in which we discussed that point. Discussions on the issue are on-going.

We do not currently collect national data on the use of non-clinical spaces. Our focus right now is on addressing the underlying causes of the issue, such as high hospital occupancy and poor patient flow. We are driving improvements and we are working closely with local systems to ensure that plans are in place to cope with demand peaks. Through the NHS Scotland operational improvement plan, we are investing £220 million to reduce waiting times, improve hospital flow and minimise delayed discharges.

Regular public reporting on hospital discharges is undertaken and published by Public Health Scotland and can be found on its website.

I have not met the Women’s Rights Network. The report has been debated in the Parliament, Ms Minto met cross-party MSPs in May, and the chief people officer has discussed the report’s findings with NHS Scotland’s human resources directors. We are taking those findings incredibly seriously. I have set out several steps that the Government has taken and the obligations that we expect NHS boards to observe as a result. We will continue to monitor progress on that.

We are committed to making services more accessible for patients. As part of that, we are investing £36 million in walk-in general practitioner services to provide the distinct benefit of allowing patients to see a GP without an appointment.

The funding for those walk-in services is just part of almost £22.5 billion that has been allocated to the health portfolio, including a record £17.6 billion for services in and resources for the national health service.

Our continued investment in the NHS is allowing us to target areas that are experiencing long waits, to reduce backlogs and to get people the appointments and treatments that they need as quickly as possible.