The Hospital Scandal That Won't Go Away
In the wake of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's explosive intervention into the fatal hospital infection scandal, the political landscape has become increasingly defensive. Observers have watched with interest as various figures scramble for cover following his revelations.
Many who previously dismissed Sarwar's attempts to uncover the truth about events at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, insisting Lord Brodie's public inquiry should proceed undisturbed, suddenly found themselves offering interpretations of a crucial Scottish Government memo. They claimed it contained nothing new, contradicted no official statements, and certainly didn't prove political interference to ensure the hospital opened in time for the 2015 general election.
The Pressure That Came From Somewhere
The truth remains that nobody knows precisely what transpired or who said what. While Lord Brodie's inquiry may edge closer to the facts than previous investigations, even his efforts face obstacles from a Scottish state apparatus that rarely admits fault and frequently deletes records.
Nevertheless, we can reasonably conclude that pressure was applied and received. In its final submission to the inquiry, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde stated unequivocally that 'pressure was applied to open the hospital' when it was 'too early' and 'not ready'.
When First Minister John Swinney faced questioning about this during First Minister's Questions, he was categorical: no pressure originated from the Scottish Government. Subsequently, the health board issued a statement, supposedly independently, clarifying that no external sources had applied pressure.
Documents Reveal Political Pressure References
Then, last Thursday, Anas Sarwar produced minutes from meetings between NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Scottish Government officials during 2019 and 2020. These documents explicitly reference 'political pressure' being experienced and note that 'no consideration was given to delaying the opening of hospital despite the issues being faced'.
Later that same day, Swinney told journalists: 'This is not a revelation, this is in front of the inquiry, this is documents the inquiry has had, and I think it's important we listen to the inquiry.'
This response highlights a fundamental problem: ministers knew the health board felt under political pressure to rush the hospital's opening—a decision potentially linked to multiple patient deaths, including children. They deny applying pressure, and the health board eventually supported their position.
The Unanswered Question: Who Applied Pressure?
The critical question remains: who applied this pressure? The minutes specifically mention POLITICAL pressure, yet officials claim it didn't come from external sources. What internal entity within a health board could exert political pressure? This troubling word 'political' demands explanation and will continue to do so until properly addressed.
Furthermore, we now know that infection warnings within Queen Elizabeth University Hospital were raised more than a dozen times in just three years. The Mail on Sunday reports that 14 serious infection outbreak warnings were issued between the hospital's 2015 opening and 2018. These alerts, shared with the Scottish Government, prompted no public ministerial intervention or investigation.
Only after patients died did ministers take meaningful action, despite accumulating evidence of safety concerns from the beginning. How could such a hospital open under these circumstances? How did it remain operational even as deaths became linked to its water supply?
Accountability Beyond the Health Board
While NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde faces serious questions, responsibility extends higher. Health and hospitals ultimately fall under Scottish Government jurisdiction. The families of deceased patients, along with the wider public, deserve to understand how ministers allowed this tragedy to unfold.
Many will ask whether ministers were incurious, incompetent, or iniquitous. But for those who lost loved ones at Queen Elizabeth, does this distinction even matter? Would knowing that Scottish Government ministers didn't explicitly push for premature opening alleviate their grief? Or that they merely failed to question whether meeting deadlines might have compromised safety?
Perhaps no smoking gun exists because no minister fired one. Instead, a culture within the health board may have prioritized speed over safety, or sought to demonstrate reliability in managing substantial public funds. Health boards that spend efficiently often receive future funding more readily.
The Human Cost Demands Systemic Change
While understanding specific decisions and motivations might provide context for grieving families, it cannot undo the damage. Patients entered hospital for treatment and became gravely ill as a result. Some died under the care of a health service we're taught to revere.
Many understand the anguish of watching loved ones die in hospital. To experience this while suspecting the hospital environment itself caused the death is unimaginable. Adding the possibility it could have been prevented makes the agony almost unbearable.
The deceased's families deserve answers. Current and future Queen Elizabeth patients deserve reassurance that the hospital is now safe, that entrusting themselves or relatives to its care isn't a life-threatening gamble.
From Words to Meaningful Reform
Lord Brodie's inquiry may provide some answers, but genuine reassurance must come from the health board and Scottish Government. They must demonstrate candor about what happened and why, with concrete commitments to prevent recurrence.
Words come easily. Countless ministers have stood holding damning reports about various scandals, promising 'lessons will be learned'. This platitude no longer suffices.
Restoring public confidence requires reforming existing institutions and systems, dismantling those beyond reform. Decision-makers and officials must be held to significantly higher standards.
Failure to act on infrastructure project warnings, especially where human life is at risk, should trigger ministerial resignations, official dismissals, and criminal investigations for those managing public sector bodies or major construction projects.
Specific Measures for Accountability
Duty of candour provisions require strengthening. Within the NHS, enhanced regulation of managers and executive leaders is essential. Patients reasonably question why negligent doctors face professional consequences while managers who mishandle expensive projects move between well-pensioned public sector positions.
Above all, political leadership must prioritize openness, accountability, and transparency. Truth and public interest must outweigh strategic or party considerations.
When ministers fail these expectations, consequences should extend beyond electoral politics to include pension reductions or eliminations, and restrictions on post-government directorships, particularly within the public sector.
The victims of Queen Elizabeth University Hospital—a phrase that chills with its implication that hospitals can have victims—deserve meaningful justice: an unwavering commitment that this outrage never recurs.
