Chamber and committees

I do not know the answer to that question and it is not appropriate for me to know the answer to it, because those are operational matters for the inquiry. If Mr Fraser wishes to pursue that issue, he could raise it with the secretary to the inquiry.

I am glad that Mr Marra has some really good reading material. It might help to change his mind about a few things and improve his views about certain questions.

Essentially, Mr Marra answered his own question in how he put it to me. The fiscal chaos that has been created by the United Kingdom Government is hardly a backdrop against which to make a dispassionate assessment of the condition of Scotland’s finances, because of the mess that the UK Government has created. As Mr Marra knows, this Government believes in fiscal responsibility, and we stand on our record for fiscal responsibility. We have delivered fiscal responsibility and we will continue to do so.

I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments and her recognition of the step that I have taken today. What she invites me to do now is to prescribe—to a degree that was not envisaged in the Inquiries Act 2005—how the inquiry should operate. I have to have a legal basis for all the actions that I take as a minister. Section 17 of the 2005 act, as I read it, gives sole responsibility to the chair to decide how an inquiry should operate. If I did what Pam Duncan-Glancy invites me to do, I would be acting inappropriately under that section of the act.

Of course, Pam Duncan-Glancy has put her comments on the record. I am certain that Lord Brailsford will study the Official Report of today’s proceedings and I am sure that he will be interested to read the particular proposition that Pam Duncan-Glancy has fairly put on the record today.

The UK Government did not engage with the Scottish Government on the most recent changes in fiscal policy for our budget. We face the prospect of further reductions as it tries to manage the damage caused by the Conservative mini-budget some weeks ago. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has warned about “decisions of eye-watering difficulty”.

I have just completed a call with the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has assured me that there will be dialogue with the Scottish Government in advance of the UK Government’s autumn statement on 17 November. I welcome that assurance. With inflation eroding the real-terms value of our budget by £1.7 billion since it was introduced in December, the UK Government needs to use the autumn statement to set out how it will protect public services, households and businesses from inflation and the cost crisis, and rule out a return to austerity.

I have everything to learn about huffing and puffing from Mr Rennie, so I promise to be a faithful student of the art, as taught by him and, no doubt, by the other oracle of huffing and puffing, Jackie Baillie, on the Labour front bench.

When it comes to political honesty, Mr Rennie should be honest about the damage that he and his colleagues inflicted on this country by propping up the Conservatives in 2010 and creating the agenda of austerity that has caused such misery for the people of this country.

I apologise to Jackie Baillie that I omitted to deal with the point about long Covid. I am not in any way avoiding the question, but we have set out the scope of the terms of reference and, in my judgment, long Covid issues are certainly within the scope of the terms of reference. Fundamentally, though, it is a matter for Lord Brailsford to determine as he leads the evidence in the inquiry. I hope that that addresses Mr MacGregor’s first point.

On the bereaved families, I cannot stress to Parliament more the importance that I attach to the voices of bereaved families being heard in the inquiry. I have asked a number of things of Lord Brailsford, including to chair the inquiry and to follow the terms of reference, but I have also asked him specifically to meet the bereaved families groupings as an early priority, because I think that that is important. As I said to the families, I have done my best to convey to Lord Brailsford what they have said to me about how they feel about the inquiry. It is critical that Lord Brailsford hears that from the families, and he has given me the undertaking that he will do so.

I have placed a requirement on the inquiry

“To demonstrate how a human rights-based approach by the inquiry has contributed to the inquiry’s findings”.

Also, in the recommendations, we place that very obligation on the inquiry—to ensure that it reports and it engages at all times in an appropriate and accessible way so that the needs of all interested parties are properly and adequately met as a consequence.

Lord Brailsford will bring his experience of many years in the Court of Session to bear in leading the inquiry. We have had a period when leadership of the inquiry has required to be changed. As colleagues across the chamber have recognised, I have addressed that as swiftly as humanly could have been the case. I am grateful to the Lord President and to Lord Brailsford for their engagement on this question, and I am very confident that the inquiry will proceed in a professional manner to address what are issues of vital importance to members of the public and members of the Parliament.

I agree with Mr Beattie on the central premise of his question. One of the key points that were made in the 2014 referendum campaign by those who argued for the union was that it offered fiscal certainty. Any independent observer looking at the events of the past few years—not just the past few weeks—would understand the fiscal and economic damage that has been done as a consequence of our continued participation in the United Kingdom. That includes the economic effects of Brexit, which everyone knows is having a negative effect on economic performance and migration, and the mind-numbingly damaging decisions that were taken in the mini-budget, which will create economic hardship for people in this country, who will lose homes and jobs as a consequence of the unnecessary increases in interest rates.

Mr Beattie makes a strong argument. I am delighted to associate myself with it and to ensure that it will be put to the people of our country.

I assure Mr Mason that the issues of Covid remain very present in our society. Indeed, as a member of the COVID-19 Committee, Mr Mason is engaged in all those questions. Therefore, the inquiry and Lord Brailsford strike me as being entirely seized of the importance of that point.

Other inquiries have taken a different approach from that of the trams inquiry. I have cited before the Scottish child abuse inquiry, in which Lady Smith has taken a modular approach and has reported on—I think—at least six modules. Therefore, the findings of the inquiry are already in the public domain, with evidence having been heard and further evidence taken. That approach has also been taken by Baroness Hallett in the United Kingdom inquiry. There are ways of making sure that the issues of concern in this debate can be heard early and swiftly. The point that Mr Mason raises can be satisfactorily addressed by the conduct and structure of the inquiry.