Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2026 [Draft]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The matters that are before us today go to the heart of public trust and patient safety, and I begin my speech by extending my deepest sympathies to every family who has lost a loved one and to every patient who has suffered harm or distress in connection with the issues that are being examined by the inquiry. No words spoken in the chamber can undo what they have endured, but it is essential that the Parliament acknowledges their pain, their courage and their determination to seek truth. Their persistence has been extraordinary. It is because of them that these matters are now subject to full independent scrutiny, with the determination that no other family has to suffer in the same way. I pay tribute to every single one of them.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was responsible for the delivery and oversight of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital project. It was the largest hospital build in Scotland’s history, and was designed to be a flagship for modern healthcare, serving patients for decades to come. However, when serious and deeply concerning allegations were brought to the Government’s attention in 2018 about safety, construction standards and ventilation systems and the potential links to infection and patient harm, it became clear that those concerns could not be dealt with through internal reviews alone.
That is why the Scottish Government established a statutory public inquiry, to ensure that those affected could have their questions answered in a forum that is independent, rigorous and empowered by law. The Government’s intention in doing so was clear and unequivocal—to uncover the full truth about what happened, why it happened and what lessons must be learned.
Before I turn to the substance of the motion, I note again to the chamber two important points of clarity. First, neither the Scottish ministers nor anyone in the chamber should prejudge the outcome of the inquiry or seek to influence the independent chair. That would be wholly inappropriate and, indeed, a breach of the very principles that are set out in the Inquiries Act 2005.
Secondly, the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have independent responsibilities to investigate and prosecute as they see fit. There is a live, on-going police investigation into patient deaths. For that reason, I will not be commenting further on that particular matter.
I turn to the motion that was lodged by Mr Sarwar. I understand the motivation behind it. When something goes badly wrong in a project of this scale and significance, it is entirely reasonable to want every possible line of responsibility examined. However, although I recognise the concern that underpins the motion, I cannot support it, because it would be incompatible with the legal framework that governs the inquiry.
All statutory public inquiries in Scotland operate under the 2005 act, which was passed by Parliament. That act exists to protect the independence, integrity and credibility of inquiries. It gives inquiry chairs powerful legal tools—the power to compel witnesses, to require the production of documents, to take evidence on oath and to determine what evidence is relevant to their terms of reference. Those powers are not held by ministers but by the independent inquiry chair.
Any member who seeks to support the motion’s attempt to influence the action of the chair is calling for the Government to act in a manner that is incompatible with that legislation, which, of course, we cannot do. The separation in the act is fundamental. It ensures that no Government, present or future, can direct, restrict or shape an inquiry to suit political convenience; it ensures that the search for truth is not compromised by external pressure; and it ensures that the families who have placed their trust in the process can have confidence that it is conducted without fear or favour.
To instruct or to attempt to instruct a statutory inquiry to examine particular categories of evidence after the inquiry has been established and is under way would be a breach of that framework. It would undermine the very independence that gives the inquiry its legitimacy. It is therefore not for Scottish ministers—or, indeed, for the Parliament—to decide what evidence Lord Brodie should or should not consider; that responsibility rests with him alone.