Chamber and committees

First, I welcome Mr Cole-Hamilton’s points, which are encouraging in relation to the conduct of the inquiry. The terms of reference are deliberately designed to enable Lord Brailsford to take a modular approach. There are 12 different sections of the inquiry remit and they are all reasonably compartmentalised. Therefore, it would be possible to do exactly what Mr Cole-Hamilton says and, as I have reflected in my answer to Mr Mason, I think that the experience of Lady Smith’s inquiry is a good example of being able to give people timely conclusions, based on the hearing of evidence, rather than waiting some time—sometimes, a very long time—for some conclusions to materialise.

Again, I think that Mr Cole-Hamilton’s points are valid ones; the operation of the inquiry is for Lord Brailsford, but he will hear the points that have been raised and will understand the seriousness with which they have been put forward.

I think that it is possible and the point that Jackie Dunbar raises with me is a good example of how the inquiry has been proceeding with its activities while we have had the issue around its leadership. I pay tribute to the staff of the inquiry, who have continued with that good work. It gives a basis on which we can ensure that members of the public can engage with the inquiry through the listening project and their contributions can begin to be reflected in the conduct of the inquiry.

I hope that it was clear from my last answer to Jackie Baillie that the consideration of the bereaved families is absolutely central to the inquiry. If there is any group of people in our country who must secure answers in the Covid inquiry, it must be the bereaved families. I hope that that provides reassurance for Mr Fraser to share with his constituent.

In relation to the reasons for Lady Poole’s resignation, she indicated to me that, for personal reasons, she wished to step down from the inquiry. Those were her words to me and it is not incumbent on me to explore or examine the rationale for her statements to me.

Murdo Fraser’s final point is, to be frank, one to which I take the greatest of exception because I have judiciously followed the contents of the Inquiries Act 2005, particularly section 17, which guarantees the independence of the inquiry. For the record, there has been absolutely no political interference in the inquiry.

Presiding Officer, Jackie Baillie invites me, by asking those questions, to break the law, because she invites me to interfere in the running of the inquiry. I simply will not do it, because I have no intention of breaking section 17 of the 2005 act. If I were to do that, the first person to complain about it would be Jackie Baillie.

I have listened with enormous care to the bereaved families on a number of occasions during the establishment of the inquiry. I have taken all the time that they have asked me to take to engage with them. I will be seeing bereaved families next week. I offered to speak to the three bereaved families groups that made representations to me on Monday. I have spoken to one group, I am in correspondence with another and I will see another group next week. Their concerns must be at the heart of the inquiry.

Jackie Baillie asks me what I will do to ensure that their voices are at the heart of the inquiry and that is something that I can do. I can insist, when I secure the appointment of judicial leadership for the inquiry, that the point that Jackie Baillie has put to me will be taken on board. It will be a condition of appointment for the judicial leadership that is put in place that bereaved families must be at the heart of the inquiry. Their issues and concerns must be properly aired and properly addressed. They must have answers. That will be at the heart of the appointment process of the next judicial leadership.

I stress the point that the inquiry is established on the basis that it is independent of Government, and it will continue to operate independently of Government.

I want to ensure—I think that this was broadly understood from the terms of reference—that members of the public who lost loved ones in the Covid pandemic had the opportunity to address their concerns and issues as part of the inquiry. That will be central to the way in which the inquiry proceeds in the days, weeks and months to come.

The Scottish Government wants the inquiry to be delivered at speed and to address the range of questions that people have—the bereaved, in particular—so that we can learn and benefit from those lessons as early as possible. That is why arrangements for appointing a new judicial chair for the inquiry have been taken forward urgently to ensure a successful transition.

The Scottish Government remains committed to the vital work of the inquiry, as does the independent inquiry team, and Lady Poole will continue as chair during her notice period of up to three months. A further update will be provided to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.

The first point to make is that the Inquiries Act 2005 requires that the inquiry is independent of the Government. That is the law; I must obey the law and I am following the law. Under the 2005 act, ministers have the power to establish an independent public inquiry, to set its terms of reference, and to appoint a chair and a panel. Section 17 of the 2005 act gives an inquiry chair alone, rather than ministers, responsibility for deciding how an inquiry should operate. That includes the approach to taking evidence and engaging with stakeholders. That is the legal position that I must follow.

I considered carefully what information I should share with members of Parliament when I telephoned them on Monday evening, because I was mindful of my legal obligation to respect the independence of the inquiry. The staffing matters of the inquiry are exclusively a matter for the chair of the inquiry. At no stage have I tried to conceal information; I have simply respected the legal framework under which I must operate.

In relation to the sequence of events, Lady Poole emailed my office on Friday morning. I spoke to her within minutes of the email being received and Lady Poole intimated to me her decision to step down for personal reasons. In the course of that call, she indicated to me that four members of counsel had resigned from the inquiry the previous day. That was news to me, as were the circumstances that led to Lady Poole’s resignation, when I heard it on Friday morning.

I do not know where to start with that question, to be honest, because I simply stood up in Parliament and made it clear that I am following the law, which requires me to respect the independence of the inquiry. If I was to go around nit-picking about the inquiry, which is what Mr Cole-Hamilton invites me to do, Mr Fraser would be on his feet accusing me of interference. Can we please respect the fact that it is an independent inquiry?

The Government has done its bit, which was to appoint a chair and to consult on and agree terms of reference. As far as I am aware from any of the representations that I have had from across the chamber, those terms of reference are judged to be absolutely appropriate. Everybody across the chamber also took the view that Lady Poole was an appropriate appointment.

The two things that the Government is allowed by law to do—to appoint a chair to the inquiry and to establish terms of reference—have been broadly supported across the chamber. Lady Poole has decided to resign and it is not for me to interfere in the running of the inquiry.

My job now is to ask the Lord President to provide me with nominees for replacement judicial leadership, which I have done. I will resolve the leadership of the inquiry as quickly as I possibly can. I want to minimise any disruption and any interruption to the proceedings. There are many staff already in the inquiry. Lady Poole will manage the transition and we will continue to advance, to ensure that the bereaved families and others are able to air the issues that they wish to have aired in the public inquiry.

Yes.

There are a couple of significant issues there.

I am happy to look at what further information would be helpful in following public expenditure to outturn. Going from budget proposals to enactment and then to the autumn and spring revisions and the outturn involves quite a number of steps. I appreciate that the numbers are quite high level by the time that we get to outturn. Inevitably, many budgets perform as we expect while others go either side of our expectation. We try to display that information in the revisions that are made in the autumn and spring and we report on that in the outturn. If there are changes that we can make, I am happy to engage in that.

Social care is a fundamental issue. The level of delayed discharge is way too high and is a source of enormous concern to ministers. We have taken a number of steps and have had a number of discussions, including a lot of dialogue with local authorities, to tackle that.

The problem of delayed discharge is the product of at least two factors, and perhaps a third. I am certain that our systems are not yet proactive enough and are not sufficiently preventative in supporting people at home to avoid their having to go into hospital. Lots of good work is going on around the country. There are low-level care packages that deliver just enough support to keep people in their own homes. A variety of public and third sector support services assist in that endeavour, but I accept that there are probably not enough services, which results in some people being admitted to hospital when we really should be able to support them at home and avoid them going there in the first place.

Part of the problem with waiting times at accident and emergency is that our hospitals are congested. Some people who come in through the front door of A and E should not be coming. Other people, who need to come in through the front door of A and E and then go out the back door and into the hospital, cannot make that journey quickly enough because the hospital is congested with people who really should be out of hospital and back home. They are not at home, because we do not have sufficient capacity to support people who might need higher-volume care packages than the other people I talked about, who might need very modest amounts of social care support.

I do not think that that is all about the third thing that I am debating in my mind, which is the availability of money. For once, I do not think that there is a shortage of money in social care. The issue is a shortage of people. We have lost a lot of people from social care. If I think about the community that I represent, a lot of people who were delivering social care had come in from other countries to provide that support and many of them have gone away.

For completeness, I must recognise a point that I acknowledge that the deputy convener has made on many occasions during parliamentary debate, which is that social care salaries may not be high enough to attract people when they make choices between different areas of economic activity. We have undertaken a local government pay deal that has been designed to strengthen pay for those at the lower end of the pay scale. I hope that that will help us on that journey, but we must remain open to that legitimate issue.