Current status: Answered by Angela Constance on 4 November 2025
To ask the Scottish Government, for each of the 46 recommendations in the report An Investigative Review into the process of establishing, managing and supporting Independent Reviews in Scotland that it decided not to accept, what the reasons were in each case for the decision not to implement the recommendation.
The reasons are set out below.
Dedicated administrative support unit within the Scottish Government to support all commissioned reviews (recommendations 3 and 40)
From both logistical and governance perspectives, the Directorate responsible for the subject matter of the inquiry or review is best placed to provide the sponsor team. There are insufficient numbers of inquiries and reviews to justify the creation of a dedicated administrative unit with no other function. Establishing such a unit would likely lead to duplication of costs and effort, as it would still need to rely heavily on the expertise of policy officials within the relevant Directorates.
The chair should draft the remit and terms of reference (recommendation 6)
Although inquiries and reviews are independent of Government, they exist to investigate matters set out by Ministers in the terms of reference. The terms of reference of an inquiry are one of the principal means by which Ministers can control the costs of an inquiry. Although they are always discussed with the proposed chair of an inquiry, Ministers must have the final say in order that the terms of reference are not inappropriately wide, leading to a prolonged and more expensive inquiry – potentially attracting further criticism.
Appointment of chair to be open and transparent (recommendation 18)
The appointment of a chair involves careful discussions with potential candidates to assess their suitability and willingness to undertake the role. These discussions take into account factors such as the anticipated duration and complexity of the inquiry, and other relevant considerations, including the potential for adverse personal publicity.
While transparency is important, experience shows that open public appointment processes are not typically suited to the timescales and expectations associated with inquiries and reviews. These processes can be lengthy and may not align with the need for timely commencement and delivery of such work.
Template which standardises what is presented at the end of a review (recommendation 42)
The presentation of an inquiry’s report is a matter for the chair. Given the wide range of subjects that inquiries and reviews may address, a standard template could not accommodate the diversity of issues and contexts involved. Flexibility allows chairs to structure their reports in a way that best serves the purpose and clarity of their findings and recommendations.