To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether NHS Tayside should exempt legal claims by former patients of Professor Sam Eljamel from the three-year time bar which is currently in place. (S6F-04345)

As Liz Smith will know, I am familiar with those issues from my engagement as First Minister and as a Constituency member with constituents affected by the issue. My thoughts are very much with the patients of Professor Eljamel. That is precisely why we launched the public inquiry that is now under way, to ensure that patients can obtain answers to their questions and that lessons are learned.

We fully expect NHS Tayside to consider all the facts and circumstances fairly and on a case-by-case basis, including when considering whether to plead that a case is time barred. The courts already have the power to allow an action to proceed out of time by overriding the time bar, if they see fit.

The sentence that the First Minister just quoted was exactly what the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, said in a letter to the patients. I repeat:

“the courts already have the power to enable an action to proceed by overriding the time bar.”

As the public inquiry continues to uncover a whole lot of information that was previously unknown to some of those patients, they are, quite reasonably, asking for the time bar to be lifted. I ask the First Minister for a categorical assurance that the Scottish Government has made section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 clear to NHS Tayside, allowing the ministers to ensure that NHS Tayside will lift the time bar, which is clearly a major barrier to getting at the truth.

First, I acknowledge Liz Smith’s long-standing engagement on the issue. I hope that the words that I have put on the official record of Parliament give her some reassurance. I said two things in my opening answer. The first is that we fully expect NHS Tayside to consider all the facts and circumstances fairly on a case-by-case basis, including when considering whether to plead that a case is time barred. That point has been made clearly to NHS Tayside.

Secondly, it is a matter of fact, which Liz Smith acknowledges, that the courts already have the power to allow an action to proceed out of time by overriding the time bar if they see fit. That is for the courts to determine, so it is not for me, as First Minister, to make that clear, but the bit that I can make clear is what the health secretary has already done, which is to make it plain to NHS Tayside that we expect the issue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We have not proceeded on a general basis—it has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. We have made that clear to NHS Tayside, and the courts have the ability to apply that discretion, should they judge that to be appropriate. That is the right place for the issue to be handled.

I hope that that provides the reassurance that Liz Smith seeks. If she would like further reassurance, she knows that the health secretary and I will engage with her and other members who are invested in the issue.

I thank the First Minister for his detailed and considered answer, which is helpful. However, I am standing here to make sure that it is fully understood by all those in positions of power and in the courts that there is a strength of feeling from Michael Marra, Liz Smith, me and many others who have constituents who have suffered for years. They have waited for years, and only now is the truth beginning to be fully established, thanks to the public inquiry. I reinforce the point that, if we can lift the time bar, it should be lifted so that compensation can be made available to those who have suffered for far too long.

Mr Rennie gives me an opportunity to reinforce the point that I made to Liz Smith, which is that it is the Government’s expectation that NHS Tayside will consider actively, on a case-by-case basis, whether the time bar should be used as a plea or not. That is influenced by the circumstances and the details that emerge. The point that Mr Rennie makes about new information emerging as part of the public inquiry is absolutely material to that consideration, and I hope that that provides him with assurance.

I acknowledge Mr Rennie’s long-standing interest in this question. For me, it is vital that members of the public who have suffered are able to get to the truth and have no legal obstacles to being able to pursue that truth.