Chamber and committees

I disagree with that. In some cases, we can be very open and honest and say that ministers have not always got it right. Therefore, let us take it as read that ministers do not always get it right. However, if what you suggest were the case, the public would be aware of the alternatives to a public inquiry that might, in some cases, be better suited to the purpose of identifying the facts and that might be quicker. I had some exchanges with the convener about inquiries that last five to 10 years. There are several alternative options to a statutory public inquiry.

Statutory public inquiries are often dominant in the public debate and in the media. There is a lot of interest in them, and the increased demand will simply be a result of the public assuming that a public inquiry is the only route by which they can get a thorough review of the facts.

We take it as read that ministers do not always get it right. There will always be other alternative ways of obtaining a thorough review of the facts that are not legally constrained in the same way that public inquiries are.

I want it to come across in my evidence today that there is very much an openness to considering the committee’s recommendations and what changes could be made. That is unlikely to happen before dissolution; such consideration will take place in the next session of Parliament. My strong desire is to see that done on a cross-party basis.

As I said earlier, an inquiry does not need to be led by a judge. We are certainly open to non-judge-led public inquiries—indeed, we would welcome that. We are very conscious, in particular from our engagement with the Lord President, of just how extensive the workload on judges is. There is also the option of a panel approach, so there are alternatives.

My team might want to come in on that, because it is a really good question.

With regard to the approach that is taken by a chair, I think that, ultimately, the independence gives the chair the responsibility of determining the costs, the witnesses and so on. I could not possibly comment, therefore, on matters going wrong at inquiries, but it highlights some of the ironies for the public, perhaps, in the cost of an inquiry versus the cost of the matter that went wrong that the inquiry is ultimately reviewing.

It is an extremely important issue—of that, there is no doubt. It is a horrendous issue. Your question perhaps illustrates the impact of all the other questions that I have just been answering. In other words, there could be a call from the committee to say that there are too many inquiries, and I guarantee that, within seconds of the committee’s report being launched, there would be calls for additional specific inquiries. That is why I think that we need to hold these matters quite carefully and look at the impact on reality of the theory that we are debating.

The Scottish Government, and the First Minister in particular, have responded to the call for an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland. I sponsor the Scottish child abuse inquiry, and I know just how much survivors have valued the independent, thorough review of matters that took place in the dark, behind closed doors, in bringing those matters into the light.

I will not give any further views on a grooming inquiry here; suffice it to say that it is a very serious matter. There are issues on which we should not shut the door on public inquiries in general, with regard to the evidence that we are discussing today, because inquiries have an important role to play.

I was very clear that I do not think that the Government always gets it right, but I reject the suggestion that this is just a question of bowing to public pressure. Let us look at the issues that are the subject of live inquiries. We did not set up a Scottish child abuse inquiry because of public pressure; we set it up because it is utterly ghastly what has gone on in this country for decades. You will be more familiar with the Eljamel inquiry, and I will not comment on what the inquiry will or will not do, but we did not set it up just because of public pressure. We set it up because victims/survivors and colleagues—other MSPs—believed that it was the only way to identify the facts. It trivialises these matters—I know that that is not your intention—to suggest that it is just a case of bowing to public pressure.

On your question, the reason for the growth in the number of public inquiries comes back to a lack of knowledge of and confidence in the alternatives. Public inquiries dominate the public discourse, and there is a sense that only a public inquiry will suffice and that it is the only thing that the public can have confidence in to determine the truth. In a similar way, there are usually calls for the chair of an inquiry to be a judge rather than someone in an alternative role. That comes from a slightly flawed, in my view, belief that only a judge can bring gravity to the situation. There have been a number of very high profile inquiries. We know what happened last week with the Covid inquiry—that is an obvious one.

I disagree. I have just had an exchange with Liz Smith, which I think provides the evidence in response to that. That comment suggests that all the issues that are the subject of public inquiries right now are modern—as of the past few years. I go back to the Scottish child abuse inquiry. I keep picking up on that inquiry because we all understand and accept that it is the most expensive and the longest running. That inquiry is dealing with historical matters, and I know from speaking to survivors just how much they value the light being shone on the horrendous injustice that happened when they were children.

That point would hold more water and more weight if the subjects of the public inquiries were more modern and if we were, in essence, outsourcing the answers to difficult questions, but, if you look at the most expensive and longest running of these inquiries, that characterisation does not apply.

The Covid inquiry started in 2022, I think—2023, in fact—so it is probably unfair to say that we are five years on—

We have tried to do that through the approach that we have taken to sponsorship—for example, the same team is now sponsoring several inquiries. In the spirit of your question, I think that there is merit in taking such an approach by using the same team.

My only caveat is that, again, I stress that the subject matter of public inquiries is very varied. A sponsorship team might be intimately familiar with establishing an inquiry and the rules and regulations within which it operates, but the situation for a team sponsoring an inquiry in the justice space is very different from the situation with the Covid inquiry, which is very health specific. Being too prescriptive might undermine certain elements of the process. Nonetheless, on the sentiment of what you say about having one team that understands inquiries, your point is well made.

—whereas the cost of the Scottish Covid inquiry is £45.5 million.