Chamber and committees

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

First, I express my good wishes to Caroline Macdonald. I understand and fully appreciate the impact of long Covid—actually, I cannot fully appreciate the impact, because I have not experienced it, but I understand the suffering of individuals and the endurance that is involved. The Government is entirely focused on ensuring that we address the clinical needs of individuals who experience long Covid.

On the conduct of the inquiry, as Dr Gulhane will know, inquiries by their nature—in particular, those that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005—must operate independently of Government. The operation of the inquiry is therefore a matter entirely for its chair.

As I have indicated to the Parliament, I very much regret the fact that Lady Poole felt it necessary to tender her resignation. She did so and I respect her reasons, and that is the end of the matter.

I have moved swiftly to replace Lady Poole with the eminent judicial leadership of Lord Brailsford, who will tomorrow be able to start his activities in leading the inquiry. I am very grateful to the Lord President and to Lord Brailsford for the substantial amount of reorganisation that has been involved in enabling that to be the case.

All the issues that Dr Gulhane raised about long Covid are legitimate to be raised as part of the inquiry. However, beyond the setting of the terms of reference, it would be wrong for me to prescribe what should be discussed in the inquiry. That is a matter for Lord Brailsford to determine within the scope of the remit.

There is a lot in there, but I shall endeavour to work my way through it.

First, I welcome Jackie Baillie’s comments on Lord Brailsford’s appointment. When I spoke with him on Tuesday to advise him of my intention to appoint him, he indicated to me that he believed it to be an honour to be invited to lead the inquiry, and he said that in his public statement this afternoon. That speaks for what Lord Brailsford will bring to the inquiry. He realises its significance.

As I said in my statement, I have also asked Lord Brailsford to engage with bereaved families, which he has agreed to do as an early priority. I totally accept the importance of ensuring continued confidence; indeed, just before I came into Parliament this afternoon, I had three separate discussions with bereaved families groups to advise them of the contents of the statement.

In relation to the conduct of the inquiry and the appointment of senior counsel, the point about section 17 is not pedantic. There are very good reasons why the Government is not, and should not be, close to these matters. Those are questions for Lord Brailsford; he is engaged on those questions, and will be engaged on them tomorrow, when he assumes his formal responsibilities. I unreservedly give the commitment that the Government will provide whatever support Lord Brailsford considers necessary, and I have made that offer to him.

In relation to the delay to the inquiry, I reassure Jackie Baillie that, since Lady Poole’s resignation, she and staff have remained engaged and the work of the inquiry has continued. The Government is undertaking work to support the inquiry in relation to requests for information that have been asked of us. That is all under way.

On resources, as I think I have said publicly before, the inquiry already has more than 60 members of staff, so there are resources there. If more resources are required, Lord Brailsford will advise me of the requirements. The Government—subject to ensuring that we can protect the independence of the inquiry—will give all operational support. However, Lord Brailsford will be the judge of that, as he is the custodian of the independence of the inquiry. I am very confident that he will exercise that judgment.

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.