Chamber and committees

I think that that is probably what the committee is doing right now, is it not?

The responsibility for managing the costs, as per the Inquiries Act 2005, is on the chair.

I go back to expressing my understanding of the purpose of the question, because I am in the midst of setting budgets and I can think of a lot of things to which I would like to attribute and assign funding, but I also have to make sure that there is a buffer for the demand-led public inquiries.

Absolutely, and one point on which I would absolutely reassure the committee is that our chairs are all very conscious of their obligation in that regard. I can vouch for that, because it is the subject of conversations that I have with them. I engage periodically with the chairs of the inquiries that I sponsor, and I am very grateful for the sacrifice that some of the chairs make in managing public inquiries. It is worth noting—

Before I answer the points that you raise, I make it clear that, in my answer, I am not discussing any particular inquiry. I think that it is important, before I give my thoughts in response, to say that this is not a reflection on any independent inquiry. I am the sponsor for some of these inquiries, and I do not want to undermine their chairs.

I am certainly not coming to the committee in a position of defensiveness, and I welcome the committee’s consideration of the issue in its inquiry, because I think that these matters merit very serious consideration.

I talked about our annual engagement with inquiries on the budgeting for those inquiries. In my budget alone, if one area of demand-led budgeting continues to grow and grow, there is nowhere else for it to go, so some of the other areas in my portfolio must be squeezed. There may not be a direct correlation between some areas in my portfolio and inquiries, but if that demand-led budget increases significantly—and because of the independence of the inquiries—I am under an obligation to meet those costs irrespective, so long as the chair understands their statutory duty to avoid unnecessary costs. That is the situation that the Government is in.

You will understand that, in other portfolios—where, for example, there is a sponsor team for Police Scotland or NHS Scotland, as there is—there will be similar conversations going on about the budget requirements and forecasts, and meeting their obligations, and public inquiries will be part of those conversations.

All that is to say that I am extremely interested in what the committee concludes in its recommendations. If we are going to move forward and make any changes—as you will appreciate, I am always up for implementing recommendations that committees come up with—I think that, with regard to inquiries in particular, which are so often backed on a cross-party and cross-societal basis, we need to have a cross-party discussion about weighing up those tensions.

I am happy to confirm on the record that there is no requirement for a proposed chair to be a judge. If the proposed chair is a Scottish judge, we first need to consult the Lord President, but there is no requirement for a proposed chair to be a judge.

I am trying to speak candidly here while being sensitive. I often hear demands for a judge from those who are supportive of an inquiry being established, but I say again that there is no requirement for the proposed chair to be a judge.

We will reflect carefully on that point. Going into the next parliamentary session, there will probably be an opportunity to carefully consider the committee’s recommendations and look at what changes the committee thinks should be made in line with the approach that other countries take. I strongly believe that this issue needs to be progressed on a cross-party and cross-parliamentary basis.

Let us start with our legal requirements, which are that the death of Sheku Bayoh needs to be reviewed and investigated.

In 2019, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice set out to the Parliament that the Lord Advocate, as head of the system for the investigation of deaths in Scotland, had concluded that a fatal accident inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh would not allow all the issues that required to be investigated to be addressed. We then had several years of examining the issues. To go back to 2019 and, essentially, dismiss years of evidence would be counterproductive to the original legal requirement under which we operate.

When it comes to the options that are in front of me, I want the inquiry to conclude promptly. That is in everybody’s interest. I think that it needs to conclude in a way that uses all the evidence that has been given over several years, and the chair who will be appointed will need to consider that evidence, manage closing statements and draft a report. I see no alternative, despite some discussion in the public domain about alternatives. When it is broken down into the facts, including the legal obligation under which we must operate in relation to a death such as Sheku Bayoh’s and the costs of the last 100-plus days of evidence, I cannot see how it is possible to come to any conclusion but that a chair should be appointed who examines the evidence.

I see no reason for the chair who is appointed to have to take all 100 days’ worth of evidence again. I do not think that anybody believes that that is required. Those 100-plus days are all recorded and can be viewed.

I do not know whether any member of my team wants to correct anything that I have said.

I add that he is not part of the inquiry.

I think that Don McGillivray has something to say.

I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the question about the requirement to declare an interest, so I am happy to go and explore the obligations on ministers. As you know, we are required to regularly review our publicly declared interests, both as MSPs and as ministers. The Cabinet secretariat requires us to regularly update that list and to ensure that it is as up to date as possible.

We all sit under that obligation, irrespective of the particular issue on our desk, if that makes sense. The register of interests should apply, irrespective of the specific decision that we are making. In all such situations, officials would have given advice to ministers. Ministers do not take decisions independently of officials. Extensive legal and other policy advice is given to ministers with regard to all the decisions that they take.