Scottish Hospitals Inquiry ignores the sewage works
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Scottish Hospitals Inquiry has repeatedly heard staff describe sewage smells, leaks and proximity to Shieldhall wastewater treatment works near the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital campus; witnesses and media coverage raised the treatment works as a potential risk to air and water quality [1] [2] [3]. Some expert witnesses told the inquiry tests for airborne transmission and environmental sampling around the sewage works should be considered, but publicly available summaries of the inquiry’s interim report stress that investigations continue and do not conclude the issue [4] [5].
1. What the inquiry record actually shows about “sewage”
Multiple pieces of oral and written evidence recorded in press reports describe a “sewage-like smell” in children’s wards, examples of sewage leaks and black sludge in sinks, and staff concerns about adjacent sewage works when the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital opened [1] [2] [3]. These accounts are part of the inquiry’s evidence bundle and were given by frontline staff and clinicians to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry [1] [2].
2. Experts urged testing of airborne and runoff pathways
At least one expert told the inquiry that the proximity of the Shieldhall sewage treatment works “seemed an unacceptable risk” and recommended air sampling and water-runoff testing to check whether airborne particles or effluent could be entering the hospital environment [4]. That statement, reported in national media, frames the sewage works as a plausible environmental exposure route warranting investigation rather than a proven causal factor.
3. Inquiry status: ongoing work, not a closed finding
The inquiry’s interim report and parliamentary discussion make clear the report is interim and that further hearings and investigations continue into the QEUH and other sites; the Scottish Government and parliament have emphasised that the inquiry’s remit is ongoing and not yet concluded on many matters [5]. Available sources do not say the inquiry has issued a final finding that sewage works caused infections; they instead record concerns, evidence and calls for further testing [5] [1].
4. Media coverage vs. formal inquiry outputs
News outlets (Herald Scotland, Daily Mail, Daily Record, The National) have prominently highlighted staff testimony about smells and the expert recommendation to test for airborne transmission from the sewage works [1] [4] [3] [6]. These reports amplify witness concern but differ from formal inquiry documents; the inquiry’s publicly posted bundles and its statement that hearings will continue show the difference between press emphasis and the inquiry’s procedural posture [7] [8] [9].
5. Where the record is incomplete or silent
Available sources summarise concerns and calls for testing, but they do not document completed, conclusive environmental sampling linking the treatment works to hospital contamination, nor do they show a final inquiry judgment attributing infections to the sewage works [4] [5]. If you are seeking definitive scientific confirmation of airborne transmission from Shieldhall into hospital spaces, current reporting does not provide that evidence—available sources do not mention such a completed, conclusive study [4] [5].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Frontline staff and clinicians presented practical concerns about smells, leaks and patient safety; media outlets pushed these narratives into public view [1] [2] [3]. Expert witnesses urging environmental testing framed the sewage works as a preventable design risk [4]. At the same time, the inquiry and government communications emphasise due process, remediation and that the interim report is not the final word—an institutional stance that can appear cautious or defensive depending on viewpoint [5]. These different emphases reflect competing agendas: patient advocates seeking accountability and scientists demanding rigorous sampling, versus institutions stressing the need for methodical investigation.
7. What to watch next in coverage and inquiry documents
The inquiry’s rolling bundle publications and scheduled oral hearings signal that new evidence and witness statements will continue to appear; the inquiry’s website and its forthcoming bundles for the Glasgow hearings are the authoritative sources for any newly disclosed testing or findings [7] [8] [9]. Watch for explicit references to environmental sampling results, formal expert reports on air and runoff pathways, or any definitive statements in future interim/final reports to move the question from allegation to established fact [5] [9].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied reporting and inquiry materials; it does not include independent environmental test results or documents beyond those sources.