Chamber and committees

The terms of reference are there. I think that my judgment is that Lady Poole might think that the way in which Parliament scrutinises the Government is a matter for members of Parliament. Members of the judiciary tend not to reflect on the processes of Parliament. However, I have no opinion on whether that issue should be considered. For the record, I note that there has been a voluminous amount of parliamentary scrutiny, not least in my Thursday morning meetings with Mr Whittle and his colleagues.

Yes. The chair has the scope to consider how best to address the 12 areas of investigation at the heart of the inquiry’s terms of reference. It will be up to Lady Poole to determine how best to hear and to structure evidence to enable that, and then to report accordingly. In my statement, I perhaps suggested some matters in more detail than I should have done, but it will be for Lady Poole to determine the issues independently of Government. I stress that she will operate absolutely independently of Government.

Mr Fraser is right that his first question is difficult for me to answer. There are different ways in which public inquiries can take forward their reporting responsibilities and it will be for Lady Poole to determine how she does that. I can give Mr Fraser an example. In the historical child abuse inquiry, Lady Smith has published a series of case study findings in the course of her work. Those have been helpful in giving answers to individuals who have experienced abuse in those circumstances.

I hope that the way in which we have structured the remit of the inquiry on Covid will give Lady Poole the opportunity to consider whether she could perhaps publish an interim set of conclusions on a similar case study basis. However, that is me intruding on the design of the inquiry, which I am not entitled to do. We obviously want to receive a report, or findings, as quickly as possible, but there has to be adequate time to undertake the tasks. I am sure that Lady Poole will make clear her approach to that point in due course.

In relation to Mr Fraser’s second question, I dispute the narrative that he sets out, but I assure him that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with the inquiry. I have given a pledge to do so, and the Government will do that in every way that is required of it.

The formal process of establishing the inquiry requires a setting-up date to be established, which will be as early in the new year as we can arrange. That is a matter of negotiation between the Government and Lady Poole, with Lady Poole being very much in the driving seat in determining that moment. We will get the inquiry established so that it can begin its proceedings. We have taken a very significant step in getting to the appointment of a chair and the setting of terms of reference. Interim staff are in place to support Lady Poole and she will be able to take steps to establish the inquiry. I know that she wishes to proceed at pace.

In relation to the wider questions, many of the issues that Jackie Baillie raised are matters for the inquiry to consider. The four harms framework has been at the heart of the handling of Covid. I led that policy development within Government to recognise the fact that there are no easy choices to be made in handling the Covid pandemic. I acknowledge that there have been significant implications for other health services as a consequence of the prioritisation of Covid care. Sadly, that is what happens when a global pandemic comes upon us.

The inquiry will be able to consider and reflect all that thinking under the broad remit that has been given to it. Obviously, Lady Poole will be able to reflect on all those questions.

I think that the Parliament will recognise that I have endeavoured to ensure that we have the broadest possible remit for the inquiry. Judging the treatment mechanisms for long Covid feels to me like a clinical matter that is perhaps beyond the scope of Lady Poole’s inquiry. There are plenty of clinical advisers who can consider the treatment of long Covid. Lady Poole is free to explore any questions that are relevant to the terms of reference. If issues arise in relation to long Covid, I am sure that we will hear about them.

In relation to the last part of Gillian Mackay’s question, I note that, as the period within the inquiry’s scope will go up to 31 December 2022, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the experiences in relation to omicron.

In relation to the reporting questions, I refer to the examples that I gave in my response to Murdo Fraser. There will be an opportunity, should the inquiry decide to do so, to do case study reporting or produce a series of interim reports. Those are choices that Lady Poole will be able to make, and I am quite sure that she will consider the representations that are made in the course of our discussion on this parliamentary statement and elsewhere about how matters can best be taken forward.

Just carry on.

Our review process over the past few weeks has included ministerial engagement with a wide range of business sectors, including hospitality, tourism, culture and events, which have been most impacted by Covid. The new omicron variant has refocused our efforts and those discussions and, again, stressed the importance of our protection measures, such as the Covid status certification scheme. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy met the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Scottish Financial Enterprise.

Pauline McNeill will be familiar with the delicate balance that the Government is trying to strike in the matter. We want business sectors to be able to operate as normally as possible, but we face significant threats, and a renewed threat from the omicron variant into the bargain. The message that the Government has been setting out over the past 10 days about increasing the volume of individual testing before socialising or going to a retail environment is important in encouraging individuals to take more responsibility in ensuring that they are safe to go out and circulate.

As I indicated in a radio interview earlier this week, I am now testing myself daily when I am likely to be in contact with members of the public. That is a personal decision to protect my family and ensure that I am able to safely exercise the functions of my office in relation to others. I encourage members of the public to do likewise.

It is essential that we ensure that lateral flow device testing kits are available. They are freely available through the NHS inform website and at numerous pharmacies. In partnership with local authorities, we are trying to extend the physical availability of the kits in communities.

The First Minister, along with the First Minister of Wales, wrote to the Prime Minister last week to set out a number of practical issues that we believe need to be addressed in relation to the possible implications of the omicron variant. One of those issues is the possibility of business operations being interrupted due to additional restrictions that we might have to bring in. We make the point in the letter about the importance of having a flexible approach across the United Kingdom to ensure that different Administrations—which might be affected at different times, although the scale and time of any impact could be the same across the whole of the United Kingdom—have financial support made available to them.

We welcome the fact that there was support from Her Majesty’s Treasury in earlier stages of the pandemic. As we have reflected in this question time session, the threat has not gone away. It might—it is likely to—intensify as a consequence of omicron, so we need to have financial support. We will continue to discuss the matter with the United Kingdom Government.