Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the committee for allowing me to come along to move amendment 14 and to speak to the other amendments in the group. I believe that they will go some way towards righting past wrongs and, if agreed to, will ensure that patients who have been seriously injured or harmed in a healthcare setting and—even more tragically—those families who have lost a loved one in such circumstances are never again left struggling to get answers and justice. In effect, this set of amendments is the basis for putting Milly’s law into effect.

The scandal at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital shows in all too obvious a way how families have to battle simply in order to get answers to what has happened. Even in recent days, we have heard horrifying stories of health boards spying on bereaved families who are seeking justice for their loved ones. I am sure that all of the committee will agree that that is absolutely shameful.

However, it is not the first time that there has been major injury or harm in a healthcare setting. Perhaps I can take as an example for the committee my own experience, with the Clostridium difficile scandal that we had at the Vale of Leven hospital and where having a patient safety commissioner would have been so valuable. I am minded—as we all are—that an independent inquiry is under way, and I do not wish to interfere with that process. However, with the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill, we have an opportunity to ensure that families such as those of Milly Main and Andrew Slorance—and, indeed, the C diff families—will never again be left crying out for help, for answers, for support and, yes, for justice.

Let me address the amendments in turn. Amendment 14 would add to the duties of the patient safety commissioner for Scotland, meaning that they would be required

“to advocate for those affected by a major incident”,

while amendment 34 defines the term “major incident” itself.

Amendment 30 would introduce a new section to the bill relating to the commissioner’s role in becoming aware of a major incident, including their contacting

“patients affected by ... and the families of patients who died”

because of a major incident and providing

“relevant information including ... sources of support ... information on accessing legal advice and representation ... details of any investigations or inquiries relating to the major incident”

and advice to whistleblowers. Significantly, the amendment would also require the commissioner to consider initiating “a formal investigation” into an incident within one year of their becoming aware of it.

Amendment 31 would require the commissioner to

“produce and publish a charter for those affected by major incidents”.

The charter, which would be consulted on, would

“include ... the obligations of public bodies in relation to affected patients”

and their families, which will be critical in holding such public bodies to account. As an illustration, we know, for instance, that although the duty of candour may exist in principle in Scotland’s NHS, that is not the lived experience of those who have had to fight for answers.

Under amendment 29, where the commissioner completes a formal investigation, they would be required to provide a copy of their report into the incident to both the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The amendment also confirms that the report could be used in legal proceedings.

Although, under the bill as it stands, the patient safety commissioner does not have the power to “make ... redress”, “assist” those “seeking redress” or “opine on” actions that should be taken in relation to individuals, amendment 15 would ensure that major incidents, specifically, are exempt from that. That will, of course, be critically important.

The amendments would empower the patient safety commissioner for Scotland to be an advocate for people who have been let down by the system in a healthcare setting and ensure that the people who are affected by such scandals are supported in knowing their rights and getting the appropriate help. We must ensure that those people are listened to and that thorough investigations that can be used in legal proceedings are undertaken. Most important, this is about getting answers.

I move amendment 14.

Although I am disappointed at the outcomes on my other amendments, God loves a trier, so I will move an amendment one last time, and I indicate to the committee that I will be bringing back all the amendments at stage 3.

Amendment 34 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

Thank you very much, convener. I point out that John Urquhart is in the gallery, such is the interest in the petition.

Far be it from me to pick up the convener on something that he omitted to say, but I invited committee members to come and have a look at the area in question. Admittedly, in doing so, I said that it was the summer—there are 14 days to go until the summer commences—but I look forward to a response and a wee trip up the side of Loch Lomond for the committee.

Whichever route is preferred—whether it is the low road, as Transport Scotland suggests, or the high road, as the petitioners’ suggests—the issue is whether a STAG appraisal has been carried out. We are talking about a significant amount of investment, and such an appraisal

“is required whenever Scottish Government funding, support or approval ... needed to change the transport system”

is being considered. Through the STAG process, there should be wider consideration of the transport project, such as the benefits that would be accrued to people living in or visiting the national park. Consideration of place, not just project, is required. What local people want must be considered, and—dare I say it?—the project has significance because it is in Scotland’s first national park.

I will take the points in turn. In its submission, Transport Scotland agrees that a full STAG appraisal has not taken place. Instead, it says that its approach was underpinned by STAG and DMRB principles. With the greatest respect to Transport Scotland, that is not the same. It is taking the principles and applying them but not doing a full STAG appraisal. It considers that that is

“consistent with STAG appraisal requirements”,

but that is a bit like Transport Scotland marking its own homework.

The petitioners have raised questions about the costings of tunnels and exaggeration of costs. Cycle paths have also been included where there was no need for them and the costs of disruption have been underestimated. That all serves to distort the conclusions that Transport Scotland has reached.

A STAG appraisal would allow those issues to be corrected but, much more important, it would consider place issues as well. For one thing, it would consider the impact on the economy and the lives of people who live in Tarbert and Ardlui. It would also consider the impact on the national park, which we should treasure and conserve.

I will turn briefly to the national park authority’s response to the committee. Perhaps it is the fault of our process, but it almost seemed to be responding as a statutory consultee. However, the matter is much wider than planning, so it is not about the authority’s response as a statutory consultee.

It is fair to say that the national park authority does not like either option. It does not like the option presented by Transport Scotland, which would involve big swathes of road going out over Loch Lomond, which would be catastrophic, and it is clear that the authority also has concerns about the high road proposal. However, I submit that a STAG appraisal would help to work through that, unlike the short-cut approach that Transport Scotland has taken.

The matter is too important not to get right. I recognise that it is critical to hauliers from the Highlands and further afield who need to use the road, but they would equally want to get it right so that they get a decent route and we conserve our environmental heritage at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.

I would be delighted, convener.

Thank you. The petitioners would contest the level of complication that is being suggested, but the difficulty that I have is that there needs to be a reality check, because it looks as though, in its response to you, the national park authority is likely to object to the existing route. That will take time in itself. If that is the scenario that is being suggested—it is certainly what I read from its submission—we could be talking about ages, in planning terms, before that is concluded.

The STAG is the accepted way forward. I would not want it to be held up unduly—I do not think that anybody would—but the reality is that it is likely to be contested, regardless of which route is picked.

Speak for yourself, convener. [Laughter.]

Good morning, convener. I am indeed perplexed by the definition of spring. Spring 2023 has now passed. We are ever hopeful, but I assume that we are now entering summer.

I recognise, as the petitioners do, that a new minister is in place and that budgets are tight, but the petitioners—and, indeed, the entire area—are keen to know whether there has been any slippage, what the timetable is for identifying a preferred solution and when the road will eventually be built. Understandably, the local aspiration is for it to be built by 2026, but the last time that a Scottish Government official opined on the matter, they said 2033. It is clear that there is a significant difference.

We are keen to understand what is going on, and the petitioners are keen to have an indication of the timetable and to know the magnitude of the slippage, if there has been any. It has to be said that they are slightly sceptical in that, although the investment in the old military road is welcome, it will be only a sticking-plaster approach, as a permanent solution has not been identified and progressed in good time. More money is being spent on a project that has consumed vast amounts of public money over the years without a permanent solution being in place.

I understand that the committee might not be entirely in favour of a public inquiry. However, the core of the petition is the petitioners’ request for a public inquiry, because they do not think that value of money is being achieved.

We have a temporary solution in place at the Rest and Be Thankful that involves catch pits. Quotes for the cost of the pits started off at around £2 million to £3 million, but the cost is now over £100 million. There is no permanent solution in place, and the investment being made in the old military road is a sticking plaster.

When is this ever going to end? We would like dates for the preferred choice and when the road will be built and completed, and we would like to know what the slippage is. I recognise that there is a new minister, but the issue has gone on for long enough.

You have taken me neatly to my final question, which is about health and social care staff. We know that they were on the front line of the pandemic, initially operating without adequate personal protective equipment. Those are the people who are suffering from long Covid. Their employment protection from Covid was removed, so now the staff are on half pay and some are on no pay. Some have been forced to leave their employment.

I have been contacted by a staff member from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde who said that its objective was simply to get her out the door and get her to quit her job. After 35 years in the NHS, she feels very angry and very let down. What can the cabinet secretary do to protect our health and social care workers who have long Covid from being dismissed by their employers?

—so we have a postcode lottery.

By May 2022, NHS England had allocated £224 million to support assessment and treatment of long Covid, and £90 million was for 2022-23 alone. Our share of that in Barnett consequentials would produce £21.7 million in Scotland. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary where that money has gone and whether he will use some of it to enhance the Covid services that are currently a postcode lottery on the ground.

For the benefit of your officials, those statistics are from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the House of Commons library.

You will be waiting a long time.