 The next item of business is the statement by Neil Gray on LGML, an NHS Tayside Public Inquiry and the Independent Clinical Review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Neil Gray, cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been one of my great privileges in the first few days as cabinet secretary for NHS recovery, health and social care to have seen and heard just a small fraction of the excellent work that is going on in our health services across Scotland. I know that we have incredibly dedicated doctors, nurses and care workers across our systems and I am truly grateful to them every day. All of us, whether for ourselves or through our families and friends, will have interactions with the NHS and therefore it is nothing more important to me than ensuring that our health service is safe and effective and that all patients receive the high standard of care that we would all expect. We should however, there be any concern felt about the care or treatment provided in our health service. It is absolutely right that patients or their families know that there are clear channels to raise those concerns and that they can have confidence that those concerns are investigated swiftly, effectively and where necessary appropriate action is taken. In September, my predecessor Michael Matheson set out in a statement to this Parliament that we would establish both a public inquiry into the actions of Mr LGML and NHS Tayside, as well as conducting an independent clinical review for those former patients of Mr LGML who would want their case reviewed. In recent days, I have met, albeit briefly, with a number of patients and patient representatives who have suffered terribly as a result of the actions of Mr LGML. Firstly, outside the Parliament at the protest last week and then at a further meeting this morning. The experiences shared with me from those brave individuals are truly shocking. I would like to put on record my regret, my sorrow, that their search for answers has taken quite so long. They also have my heartfelt respect for their determination to get to the truth of what has happened. That is why the aims of this inquiry are so important, to establish who knew what and when and what factors contributed to the failures described by NHS Tayside's due diligence review. By providing answers to concerns that patients raised about their poor experiences of care, this inquiry will make recommendations to ensure that the appropriate levels of governance and scrutiny are applied in future to prevent a similar circumstance from occurring in any health board in Scotland. Public inquiries are not undertaken lightly, but the commitment that Michael Matheson made previously, which I wholeheartedly agree with, reflects the importance of ensuring that, when repeated concerns and questions are raised, those accountable for acting on them do so, that the effectiveness of their actions are scrutinised and lessons are learned through necessary improvements. In addition, work is under way to assess how the various recommendations from previous inquiries and reviews have been implemented to assure me, and ultimately the people of Scotland, that lessons have been learned. Interventions that are found to work to improve patient safety and increase the quality of care must be embedded in the system. As many will be aware, Mr Eljamel was employed by NHS Tayside from 1995 until 2014, and concerns about his practice were first raised at NHS Tayside in 2011. As a result of a complaint received at the end of 2012, two further complaints received in 2013 and two significant clinical event analysis, NHS Tayside commissioned the Royal College of Surgeons in England to review his practice on 20 June 2013. Following receipt of the Royal College of Surgeons' final report, Mr Eljamel was suspended in December 2013. Most complaints were received after he had been suspended. In total, nine reviews have taken place into his practice, including NHS Tayside's due diligence review, published last August. That report had laid bare the failings in NHS Tayside's response to concerns over Mr Eljamel. It was clear from that review that those were not acted upon or followed up with the urgency and rigor that they deserved. As Parliament is aware, my predecessor Michael Matheson announced in September that an independent clinical review was also being commissioned alongside the public inquiry. A number of extensive conversations have taken place between officials and prospective chairs in order to ensure that the most appropriate and qualified individuals were identified to take these vital investigatory processes forward. Mr Eljamel's former patients have the right to answer, and we as Government and our public bodies must learn from their experiences to try to ensure that that does not happen again. For my discussions with former patients, including those outside Parliament last week, I understand the strength of their frustrations and of their upset, and therefore the importance of those investigations being progressed as quickly as possible. The people of Scotland must have confidence in our national health service and its systems, and have trust that any complaints will be investigated. I plan for the public inquiry and independent clinical reviews to help to build back any lost trust. Since coming into office three weeks ago, one of the first things that I did was to ask for an update on the appointment of the chairs for both the public inquiry and the independent clinical reviews, and I know that colleagues and former patients have a keen interest in the progress made. Today I can report that both chairs have now been appointed. The Honourable Lord Robert Weir will chair the public inquiry. Lord Weir is a sitting judge appointed to the Supreme Court in April 2020, having sat as a temporary judge of the High Court from 2017. As a serving judge with expertise in personal injuries, I am confident that Lord Weir will bring rigor and transparency to the inquiry. I will be meeting with Lord Weir and my officials this afternoon, where we will discuss the planned meeting between Lord Weir and the patients group to be held in the coming weeks, where they will look to endorse the terms of reference for the inquiry. My officials have also progressed several essential inquiry establishment activities, including the process to appoint the solicitor and secretary to the inquiry to support Lord Weir in the development of a plan. That plan will set out the activities to be undertaken and a delivery timeframe, including the establishment of an inquiry team, processes and practices to be utilised, outline investigation plans and proposed dates for publication of inquiry reports. Moving on to the independent clinical review, I am able to announce today that I have appointed Professor Stephen Wygmore, regious chair of clinical surgery and head of department of surgery at the University of Edinburgh under the National Health Service Scotland Act 1978, to chair the review process. He has extensive experience in leading similar clinical reviews, and I am confident that he will apply the same level of leadership and integrity to this independent clinical review process. His unique skillset and experience will enable a thorough and independent process and review of patients' clinical records for those patients who wish to partake. Professor Wygmore is a transplant and HPB surgeon. As such, he will be supported by a group of expert neurosurgeons, given the area of Mr LGML's practice. The review will be different to the previous reviews, as it will offer an individualised approach to each of the former patients who wish to take part. Professor Wygmore has been discussing with my officials the appropriate support required to enable the reviews in a timely but progressive manner. The terms of reference that have been drafted by my officials and are with the chair for consideration. As my predecessor outlined, it is expected that engagement with the former patients and patient advocates will take place prior to finalising those terms of reference. The independent clinical review is anticipated to begin in April, with patients being proactively contacted to advise them how to request a review of their clinical records. It is expected that, given the potentially large number of former patients, patients will be identified and contacted in tranches to ensure that no one is missed. Once a more definitive timeline is available, the independent clinical review team will advise former patients by email or by letter through post. In the meantime, work is already underway in order to identify all those patients who have been impacted by Mr LGML's practice. It is the intention of the independent clinical review to offer the opportunity to all patients who have concerns about their treatment and care from Mr LGML while he worked at NHS Tayside. As my predecessor has previously advised the chamber, those clinical reviews will allow a person-centred, trauma-informed review of each person's own clinical records. That will also address their individual needs and circumstances and aim to offer answers in a bespoke and personalised way that an inquiry could not. The independent clinical review will be separate from the public inquiry, however it is expected that the findings of the clinical review may form evidence that will be considered by the public inquiry in due course. As the new health secretary, I want to assure not just Parliament but, more importantly, those who have suffered at the hands of Mr LGML just how seriously I take this public inquiry. We must get to the truth of what happened to continue to rebuild trust with the public, but also to ensure that vital learning is applied and we can prevent similar circumstances from occurring again. I will continue to update the Parliament as this work progresses. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. Members wishing to ask a question who have not already done so, so you press the request-to-speak buttons and I call First Liz Smith. Thank you. I thank Neil Gray for sight of his statement regarding the very welcome appointments of the Honourable Lord Robert Weir and Professor Stephen Wygmore, but I also say thank you to Neil Gray for his very quick and effective engagement with me about the matter during the very short tenure of his being in post. We have all heard, for 10 years in my case, the most harrowing stories about the intense and permanent physical and psychological pain of LGML's patients, of families being broken apart and of heart-rending accounts of the victims trying to get to the truth, only to be knocked back at every turn. During those 10 years, I have dealt with no fewer than seven health secretaries. Although I do not doubt for a minute the sincerity of their sympathy for what the patients have had to endure, there were far too many instances of dither and delay, all of which, quite naturally, served to heighten the anxiety amongst the patients that there was some kind of cover-up. In short, we should have been at the start of the public inquiry long before now. So, whilst the work will now be in the remit of the judge quite rightly, independent of government, can I ask the cabinet secretary if he can provide a categorical assurance to this Parliament that he will review the process by which the Scottish Government oversees the work of its health boards and develop a full proof process by which there is full transparency of decisions that are made, both clinical and administrative, and full disclosure of who has been involved in those decisions? I begin by thanking Liz Smith for her tenacity, for the work that she has undertaken on behalf of her constituents over far too long a period. I think that we can agree upon that fact that we are in a situation where people have had to wait far too long to get answers and to get to this point. I am happy to take away a consideration of what more can be done to review our own processes, but I would expect that part of the public inquiry's evidence being taken will indeed be to ensure that that type of transparency and rigor is applied across all of our public services, including Government. Jackie Baillie I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and welcome him to the health and social care portfolio. I welcome the announcement of the chairs of the public inquiry and the clinical review process into the LJML scandal and NHS Tayside. I want to pay tribute to the tenacity of the many campaigners, but in particular Jules Rose and Pat Kelly. We would not be here today without their determination to see justice done. It has taken almost six months for the chairs to be appointed, but ten years for the Scottish Government to agree to that, and many of the victims of Dr L Jammell are getting older. Their campaign strap line says it all in my view. They dither, we die. On that basis, can the cabinet secretary pledge that every resource that is needed is given to the inquiry and that the clinical review as well so that it can properly proceed at pace? Indeed, all of the former patients need to be properly consulted, not just endorsing the terms of reference, and those should be finalised without delay. Secondly, I want to very quickly touch on the clinical review of cases. The cabinet secretary will appreciate that trust is in short supply of the victims. Can he therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that Jason Leitch, the national clinical director, will have no role in the review of cases or in the inquiry itself? I thank Jackie Baillie for her questions. First of all, can I reiterate her tribute to Jules Rose, to Pat Kelly, who I have had the fortune to be able to meet last week outside Parliament and again this morning, where I discussed what I was going to be announcing to Parliament today—to pay tribute to, as she described it, their tenacity and the hard work that they have put in to get us to where we are today. I think that she serves them well in her comments. On the resources of the public inquiry and, indeed, the clinical review, yes, I give that undertaking. On the reference of the public inquiry, there is a meeting to be established with the patients, representatives and Lord Weir. It will be for that discussion to take place in terms of making sure that the terms of reference meet with their expectations. I have said previously, in response to the correspondence with Liz Smith, that Jason Leitch, while heading the department and receiving briefings as a director in that department, on the progress of the reviews and the independent inquiry, does not have any day-to-day responsibility for their oversight. I refer members to my register of interests in that I hold a bank contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Can the cabinet secretary give further detail on how the public inquiry and the independent clinical review will work in parallel and complement one another? I thank Claire Hockey for those questions. Although the two processes will be operationally independent, the two processes will, I hope, complement each other to provide answers to former patients and the distinct answers that they are acquiring at different stages. The public inquiry will focus on the actions of Mr Eljamel and NHS Tayside, while the independent clinical review will produce individual case reviews, which will be provided directly to the former patient or their families, and a report on the collective reviews and common themes. It is expected that the findings of the clinical review may form evidence, which will be considered by the public inquiry in due course. I declare my interests of practicing NHS GP. I welcome the public inquiry and welcome both chairs. Eljamel has brought the medical profession into disrepute. He is a disgrace. Although clinical failures have been clear, it is abundantly clear that NHS managers have had significant questions to answer about their role in allowing Eljamel to continue to work despite mounting evidence and other decisions that they took. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that NHS managers should be regulators, as doctors and nurses, by an independent body with the legal purpose of protecting, promoting and maintaining the health and safety of the public? I thank Sandish Gilhaney for his questions. He is right to point out the fact that there have been clear failings that have been underlined by the due diligence report into clinical failings—there is no doubt—but also failings of management. I would expect the public inquiry to look into that in detail and for recommendations to come through that to inform better practice. Any recommendations, as he would expect, in order for us to ensure that we rebuild the trust of the people, I would expect Government to respect and to implement them. I want to remind members that I am still a nurse and my experience was in the peri-operative environment. Can the cabinet secretary speak to the importance of ensuring that patients are involved in every step of the process so that their voices and experiences are heard? Yes. I thank Emma Harper. I think that colleagues across the chamber have already set out the importance of ensuring that patients are at the heart of this process. The very essence of a public inquiry is to put the public front and centre, providing a platform for their experiences to be listened to and voices heard. To that end, the terms of reference for the review and the inquiry will be developed in consultation with patients and their representatives to ensure that the right focus and scrutiny is given to the right issues, all of which aiming to identify the right lessons to be learned and areas where patient safety and care improvements are required and then delivered. My constituent Pat Kelly's experience of his own case note review, which he received in 2022, has been utterly dreadful. Can the cabinet secretary tell us today whether this new independent clinical review process can ensure that patients' views and evidence are included rather than simply reviewing documentation in which patients have no faith? My constituents and their fellow victims have almost no trust left in NHS Tayside. The culture of cover-up in the health board has denied them justice for years. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the new chief executive of NHS Tayside to lay out to her that the leadership culture of cover-up in denial, a culture of managing headlines instead of honest transparency must change? I thank Michael Marra for his question. I also recognise the work that he has done on behalf of his constituent Pat Kelly in bringing those issues to the chamber and to Government. In the first instance, I recognise that lack of trust. I have heard it from the patients myself, and I understand and appreciate that. That is why the clinical review, the public inquiry, must proceed in a way that meets and services the needs of the patients and why the consultation with them by Lord Weir and Professor Wygmore will be so important. On the recommendations for NHS Tayside, the public inquiry must take its course, but, of course, in the interim, my expectation is that all health boards take seriously complaints, take seriously the concerns of people who report them and ensure that we all share the clear channels and routes by which people can raise concerns and complaints, the independent ombudsman process, as an example, as well as the whistleblower that rests within them to ensure that those patients' concerns can be met. John Swinney, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Given the pressures on the national health service with which we are all familiar, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that there will be adequate access to clinical advice and input to enable Professor Wygmore to undertake the independent clinical reviews so that the process is a deeper process than simply a process of examining historical records, but can provide some good clinical analysis for individuals who have been so wronged by the treatment of Professor Elgiomell? Thank you. I recognise John Swinney's long-standing interest and work in this area. Of course, Professor Wygmore will be supported by a group of expert neurosurgeons, given the area of Mr Elgiomell's practice. Once the number of eligible former patients are identified, he will consider what level of support is required to facilitate timely reviews. That will need to be an opportunity that is open to any former patient who wishes to partake. As such, I would like to reassure Mr Swinney and colleagues across the chamber that we will not allow anyone to be turned away because of cost or resource. Willie Rennie is to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. This Parliament, this Government, has tested the patients of the victims of Mr Elgiomell, but those appointments are serious appointments and I thank the cabinet secretary for that. Time is short for many of them. They have suffered for many years and have suffered very deeply. So what practically can the cabinet secretary do to make sure that both the inquiry and the review are carried out in good time? I thank Willie Rennie for his question and again for his involvement in raising these issues for a long period of time. I very well recognise that strength of feeling that he outlines and also the need for these processes to operate in a timely way. Obviously, I cannot give a confirmation around the length of time that the public inquiry will take. That is for the chair to determine independently in terms of how he chooses to proceed. I do know that the clinical reviews are due to begin in April and I hope that that will provide some comfort to those patients who have waited too long for those processes to begin. There is a momentum building and the processes are beginning in order for them to get answers to the questions that they seek. Jackie Dunbar is to be followed by Gillian Mackay. Can the cabinet secretary reassure former patients who arrange an individual clinical case review that they will be treated with utmost dignity and respect under the review process? Absolutely. I absolutely give that assurance. I know that my conversations with Lord Weir shortly and any conversations that I have to come with Professor Wygmore, I do not believe that that will be something that I need to impress upon. I think that that is something that they will take incredibly seriously. We must put the patients at the heart of this process, must ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. And that we get the answers that they so desperately crave. Gillian Mackay to be followed by Tess White. I offer the apologies of Maggie Chapman who is very keen to be asking a question, but due to a personal emergency, he cannot be here this afternoon. On her behalf, could I ask what work is on going to make sure that when all potential victims have been identified that they are kept up to date with the inquiries as they progress, to ensure that they have all the answers that they deserve, and how, in the meantime, trust can be rebuilt between the public and the health board? I thank Gillian Mackay for those questions. In terms of making sure that the trust is rebuilt, I set out in my statement the importance of that in this process. I am due to meet Lord Weir briefly this afternoon, and I will make sure that part of that discussion is both to impress upon the question that Willie Rennie set out in terms of timescales, but also the point that Gillian Mackay makes in terms of making sure participants or potential participants are kept updated, and I will make sure that that is also communicated to Professor Wygmore. Tess White, to be followed by David Torrance. To ask Neil Graf if the Scottish Government will ensure that all the records of the Scottish Government meetings and engagements with the LJML former patients, which do go back a long time, will be made available to the public inquiry. The Scottish Government will fully co-operate with ensuring that all the documentation that we have available is passed on. Finally, David Torrance. Can the cabinet secretary say more about how, once it is in place, the inquiry will ensure that lessons are learned and that robust safeguards are in place for patients? As indicated, the public inquiry will produce findings and recommendations. It will be for this Government to work with all parties, public bodies, to ensure that necessary improvements are made, including those relating to patient care and safety. It is beholden on us all to do so. I spoke in my statement about trust. For services to maintain or regain trust, we must respect the process and the recommendations to ensure that lessons are learned, and I absolutely intend on doing just that. That concludes the item of business. There will be a brief point of order, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much. Can I seek your advice on whether the Scottish Government has contacted you about holding an urgent statement this afternoon on the very worrying news coming out of Aberdeen? It is being reported that hundreds of people are set to be moved out of their homes because of the presence of the potentially dangerous concrete rack. Aberdeen City Council says that rack is in 500 homes in the Balnegast area, including 364 council properties. I have been pressing the Government for almost a year to get serious about the dangerous concrete. We have helped to uncover its presence in schools, hospitals, universities, colleges, fire stations, police stations, courts and, yes, homes. Now this news from Aberdeen will turn the lives of hundreds of people upside down. I am sure that members from across the chamber will want to join me in asking this afternoon, if possible, the Government questions about the timescale on which this will occur. Does as soon as possible mean immediately, days, weeks or months, where will these people be rehomed temporarily or even permanently? Was the Scottish Government aware that this decision was about to be taken? What precisely was contained in the report given to Aberdeen City Council a week ago that has caused this decision to be taken? What has changed and what impact does it have on policy in the rest of Scotland? The SNP Government has been too casual about this from the very start. I have uncovered a pattern of this Government not telling Parliament, ignoring it internally and cutting budgets. The news today from Aberdeen must force the Government to be open with Parliament to come to it this afternoon. So can I ask you, Presiding Officer, as to whether you have been contacted by the Government on holding such an urgent statement this afternoon? Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am not aware either of the reports or any approach in relation to a statement. You will be aware, Mr Cole-Hamilton, that the business for the week is agreed in the Bureau and that has been approved by Parliament. However, the comments that you have made, I am sure, will have been noted. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause before we do so.