Seòmar agus comataidhean

—about how we discuss these matters and ensure that we can do so like adults.

Today, we are seeking clarity on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Public trust and confidence in our NHS should always be a top priority—without it, we risk undermining the very foundations of our health service.

I thank all the hard-working and dedicated staff who deliver safe and effective care across Scotland each and every day. Staff are the backbone of our NHS, and I am grateful for all that they do in caring for our families, friends and loved ones. Let us be clear: the issues that we are discussing today are not an attack on those who deliver care. Rather, this debate highlights the failures in governance systems and structures, because what happened at the hospital is a scandal.

Again, I put on record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the patients, families and staff who were ignored and betrayed. Hospitals are supposed to help people to get better, not make them sicker, and no one should worry that hospitals and healthcare facilities are not safe.

The truth is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened before it was ready, and it opened with contaminated water. The risk of waterborne infection was foreseeable, and issues were raised, but they were not acted on. Those who raised concerns were belittled, silenced and threatened, and whistleblowing procedures were not followed. The health board failed to admit serious errors in judgment and withheld the truth from patients and families.

NHS staff deserve to work in an environment in which their concerns are listened to and addressed, particularly when patient safety is a concern. However, on this Government’s watch, that did not happen.

What happened at the hospital was a monumental failure—it was a failure in safety, a failure in leadership and a failure in accountability. Of course, we cannot rewrite the errors of the past, but we must do everything possible to ensure that patients are kept safe and that past mistakes are never repeated. We must ensure that those who are affected by the contaminated water are told the truth, and we must ensure that steps are taken to reassure patients that the hospital is safe.

The establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group is welcome, and action must be taken to boost the public’s confidence in the hospital. The oversight group cannot be another tick-box exercise—it must lead to tangible and meaningful change for patients, families and staff.

While we wait for the oversight group to begin its reporting, which could take months, the public need to be reassured now. We do not need an oversight group to tell us whether every ward and unit in the hospital has been fully validated; the Government could give us that information today. We do not need an oversight group to tell us what immediate steps are being taken to address issues with whistleblowing, which the Patient Safety Commissioner has identified as a system-wide issue. Finally, we do not need an oversight group to tell us how the Scottish Government will ensure full transparency over hospital safety concerns in the future.

I recognise the work that the group has been set up to do, but the Government has the power to reassure patients now. The public want to know whether each area of the hospital has been fully validated, including water and ventilation systems, whether that has been independently verified and, if so, whether that information will be published.

Until those questions are answered and patients and staff are satisfied, Parliament cannot be satisfied. It is our job to speak up for our constituents and scrutinise this failing Government. Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour are doing just that.

15:24

The Government has provided no extra funding to IJBs to support any of that work.

The minister knows that that is the proper procedure to allow me to discuss such matters and bring to the attention of the Parliament issues from trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government. If you cared at all, you would be prepared to talk properly—

Today, we are seeking clarity on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Public trust and confidence in our NHS should always be a top priority—without it, we risk undermining the very foundations of our health service.

I thank all the hard-working and dedicated staff who deliver safe and effective care across Scotland each and every day. Staff are the backbone of our NHS, and I am grateful for all that they do in caring for our families, friends and loved ones. Let us be clear: the issues that we are discussing today are not an attack on those who deliver care. Rather, this debate highlights the failures in governance systems and structures, because what happened at the hospital is a scandal.

Again, I put on record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the patients, families and staff who were ignored and betrayed. Hospitals are supposed to help people to get better, not make them sicker, and no one should worry that hospitals and healthcare facilities are not safe.

The truth is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened before it was ready, and it opened with contaminated water. The risk of waterborne infection was foreseeable, and issues were raised, but they were not acted on. Those who raised concerns were belittled, silenced and threatened, and whistleblowing procedures were not followed. The health board failed to admit serious errors in judgment and withheld the truth from patients and families.

NHS staff deserve to work in an environment in which their concerns are listened to and addressed, particularly when patient safety is a concern. However, on this Government’s watch, that did not happen.

What happened at the hospital was a monumental failure—it was a failure in safety, a failure in leadership and a failure in accountability. Of course, we cannot rewrite the errors of the past, but we must do everything possible to ensure that patients are kept safe and that past mistakes are never repeated. We must ensure that those who are affected by the contaminated water are told the truth, and we must ensure that steps are taken to reassure patients that the hospital is safe.

The establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group is welcome, and action must be taken to boost the public’s confidence in the hospital. The oversight group cannot be another tick-box exercise—it must lead to tangible and meaningful change for patients, families and staff.

While we wait for the oversight group to begin its reporting, which could take months, the public need to be reassured now. We do not need an oversight group to tell us whether every ward and unit in the hospital has been fully validated; the Government could give us that information today. We do not need an oversight group to tell us what immediate steps are being taken to address issues with whistleblowing, which the Patient Safety Commissioner has identified as a system-wide issue. Finally, we do not need an oversight group to tell us how the Scottish Government will ensure full transparency over hospital safety concerns in the future.

I recognise the work that the group has been set up to do, but the Government has the power to reassure patients now. The public want to know whether each area of the hospital has been fully validated, including water and ventilation systems, whether that has been independently verified and, if so, whether that information will be published.

Until those questions are answered and patients and staff are satisfied, Parliament cannot be satisfied. It is our job to speak up for our constituents and scrutinise this failing Government. Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour are doing just that.

15:24

—about how we discuss these matters and ensure that we can do so like adults.

The Government has provided no extra funding to IJBs to support any of that work.

The minister knows that that is the proper procedure to allow me to discuss such matters and bring to the attention of the Parliament issues from trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government. If you cared at all, you would be prepared to talk properly—

I, too, thank Finlay Carson for securing the debate. It is really important that we discuss these issues, particularly, as other members have said and as is stated clearly in the motion, when constituents raise such issues with us.

Rural communities understand how important the move to net zero is and, in my experience, they want to be part of the solution. As with many other changes, though, there are times when people feel that changes fall on their shoulders alone. However, I have also seen very good examples of people, communities, Governments and companies working together, and that must be the way in which we move forward.

We know that there are plans to substantially upgrade the existing electricity transmission network in Great Britain—other members have mentioned that—with companies planning to invest more than £10 billion in their networks in Scotland in the coming years. By some estimates, there are plans to build five times more transmission networks in the next 12 years than have been built in the past 30 years, so it is understandable that communities are considering and thinking about that—and are worried.

The building of the infrastructure and the changes that it will bring raise many issues that we must consider. Who are the companies? What are we doing to engage communities? How do we seek to ensure that community wealth building comes with that investment? How do we ensure that local communities see benefit from the often intrusive nature of infrastructure change?

Like other members, I am sure that our communities understand the complexities, and they spend a lot of time trying to understand the systems. However, although they really want to get involved in shaping the future, the current legislation and systems can be quite confusing. Communities care about the environment around them, and, without involving them in decisions, it is difficult to see how we will meet the targets that have been set out, which we all agree must be met.

While I have the opportunity, I want to mention a group in the South Scotland region that has been working closely with communities to bring people together and to develop outcomes, including community payback schemes, which are helpful for people. The 9CC Group in Ayrshire is a charitable organisation formed by nine local community councils to manage, administer and distribute community benefit funds that have been generated by wind farms across the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. The community councils have come together so that they can look at the management of funds and the strategic investment around infrastructure building, and consider how to support and empower communities.

I understand that that group is looking at one part of wind farms, but, as different infrastructure programmes go forward, some of the structures around them might be helpful for how we work with our communities. As the cabinet secretary said in her intervention on Tim Eagle, it is desirable that many of those projects work with their local communities, but we probably need to be more robust about the way in which we engage with communities.

I see that I am coming to the end of my time, so I again thank Finlay Carson for giving us the opportunity to talk about the issue and about how we get the legislation to a point at which communities find it easy to navigate and can be fully involved in every part of infrastructure planning and meeting the net zero targets, with community wealth building in place around them.

17:08

I, too, thank Finlay Carson for securing the debate. It is really important that we discuss these issues, particularly, as other members have said and as is stated clearly in the motion, when constituents raise such issues with us.

Rural communities understand how important the move to net zero is and, in my experience, they want to be part of the solution. As with many other changes, though, there are times when people feel that changes fall on their shoulders alone. However, I have also seen very good examples of people, communities, Governments and companies working together, and that must be the way in which we move forward.

We know that there are plans to substantially upgrade the existing electricity transmission network in Great Britain—other members have mentioned that—with companies planning to invest more than £10 billion in their networks in Scotland in the coming years. By some estimates, there are plans to build five times more transmission networks in the next 12 years than have been built in the past 30 years, so it is understandable that communities are considering and thinking about that—and are worried.

The building of the infrastructure and the changes that it will bring raise many issues that we must consider. Who are the companies? What are we doing to engage communities? How do we seek to ensure that community wealth building comes with that investment? How do we ensure that local communities see benefit from the often intrusive nature of infrastructure change?

Like other members, I am sure that our communities understand the complexities, and they spend a lot of time trying to understand the systems. However, although they really want to get involved in shaping the future, the current legislation and systems can be quite confusing. Communities care about the environment around them, and, without involving them in decisions, it is difficult to see how we will meet the targets that have been set out, which we all agree must be met.

While I have the opportunity, I want to mention a group in the South Scotland region that has been working closely with communities to bring people together and to develop outcomes, including community payback schemes, which are helpful for people. The 9CC Group in Ayrshire is a charitable organisation formed by nine local community councils to manage, administer and distribute community benefit funds that have been generated by wind farms across the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. The community councils have come together so that they can look at the management of funds and the strategic investment around infrastructure building, and consider how to support and empower communities.

I understand that that group is looking at one part of wind farms, but, as different infrastructure programmes go forward, some of the structures around them might be helpful for how we work with our communities. As the cabinet secretary said in her intervention on Tim Eagle, it is desirable that many of those projects work with their local communities, but we probably need to be more robust about the way in which we engage with communities.

I see that I am coming to the end of my time, so I again thank Finlay Carson for giving us the opportunity to talk about the issue and about how we get the legislation to a point at which communities find it easy to navigate and can be fully involved in every part of infrastructure planning and meeting the net zero targets, with community wealth building in place around them.

17:08

I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1.

During the committee’s evidence gathering sessions, it was clear that the bill could have the potential not only to address gaps in a largely unregulated sector, but to greatly improve patient safety, as has been said. With the growth in the non-surgical cosmetic procedures industry, a worrying gap has been highlighted in essential regulation to protect people. For too long, the industry has operated without proper safety, accountability and professional standards in place, and that has allowed many to take advantage of some of our consumers.

Just to be clear, I know that many practitioners seek to keep the sector professional and practise at a high standard—this is about the need for proper accountability and regulation. The unaccountability and lack of regulation must come to an end and introducing further restrictions is a necessary step towards improving patient safety, which is the top priority.

As I have said, Scottish Labour recognises that the bill is not perfect and that there are a number of concerns about supporting the move to a new era of regulation, safety and standards that must be addressed at stage 2. I recognise that the minister has committed to doing that. We want fair and appropriate regulation that ensures the highest standards in patient safety, while supporting those providers who deliver a professional and safe service.

A key concern that was raised during the committee’s evidence gathering was about the inconsistencies in the training and qualifications of people who provide non-surgical procedures. There was consensus on the need for robust training and national standards to be put in place to ensure clarity and consistency. I hope that the minister will be able to give some feedback on that in her closing remarks, because the committee made it clear that the establishment of clear and appropriate standards will be critical to the bill’s implementation.

In addition, serious concerns were raised about whether the sanctions for committing offences under the bill went far enough and whether they would act as a strong enough deterrent for bad actors who are willing to commit repeat offences. I welcome the fact that the Government has recognised those concerns and is considering what more can be done to address them.

An equally important issue for compliance is whether providers are being given enough support to help them ensure that they follow the law. The Government has been unable to provide any detail on what such guidance would look like, and it has not been able to confirm whether businesses will receive financial support for some of the transitions that will be necessary. We hope that that will be covered at stage 2, and I would welcome any comments from the minister to indicate that we might be able to work together on that.

As well as providing guidance for providers, the bill presents a welcome opportunity—

Of course.