Chief Executive's Update - October 2024

In 2025, the Inquiry will publish summaries of evidence for Portfolio 4 (education and certification) and Portfolio 2 (business and welfare). These narrative records will be as comprehensive as possible and include a summary of the evidence heard during the hearings, as well as relevant evidence obtained under Section 21 orders, Rule 8 notices, written witness statements and roundtable discussions.  

We will also publish a narrative record of our health and social care impact hearings (Portfolio 3) in Spring 2025. All narrative records will be published on the Inquiry’s website.  

Public inquiries have been in the spotlight recently. The Post Office Inquiry highlighted a miscarriage of justice involving hundreds of individuals, some of whom were wrongly sent to prison. The Grenfell Inquiry reported on the systemic failures and cover up by government, public bodies and private companies that resulted in the deaths of 72 people. These inquiries rightly provoked a strong sense of anger and betrayal, not only from the individuals and families affected, but also the wider public.

Public inquiries play an important role in forensically examining what has happened and then making recommendations to avoid a recurrence. They are the gold standard in investigating failures by governments and public bodies. Inquiries take time, often many years, and cost significant amounts of public money. So, it is right that their efficacy and value is debated. However, that debate is often clouded by misunderstandings about what a public inquiry can – and cannot – deliver.

The Inquiries Act of 2005 sets out the legal basis for public inquiries and their powers. What marks out public inquiries from other investigations is that they can compel organisations, including governments, to provide information. Inquiries can also compel witnesses, including government ministers, to give testimony.  

Inquiries also have a legal duty to consider “fairness” and to “avoid unreasonable cost”. One of the tricky tasks for any inquiry Chair is to strike the right balance between those responsibilities. For example, being as inclusive as possible and giving a voice to those who have been harmed, while protecting the public purse. 

But a public inquiry is not a court. It cannot assign criminal liability or blame. An inquiry cannot prosecute, it cannot award compensation, and perhaps most critically, cannot force governments to act on its findings. Sometimes you hear individuals and families, who have suffered a terrible loss or injustice, say that they want their day in court and that a government or other public body be punished or held to account. Inquiries cannot do these things. That is the job of the police, public prosecutors and the courts.  

What inquiries can do is make recommendations to governments in an attempt to ensure that terrible events never happen again. That is why inquiries spend a long time establishing the facts. What happened and when? What decisions were taken, or not? Who made those decisions? Were they the right decisions? What got missed, subverted or ignored? 

Once evidence has been gathered and analysed, inquiries will then produce a final report with a list of recommendations for the government of the day. For the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry, that means producing a report and recommendations for the Scottish Government. At that point, the Inquiry’s work is finished, subject to closing down and transferring its records to the relevant national archive.  

We then reach the biggest challenge that all inquiries face at closure – how to get your recommendations implemented? After spending many years and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, there is no obligation on governments to implement, or even accept, an inquiry’s recommendations. The recent track record for some inquiries has been disappointing, with very few recommendations followed-up. Inquiries often report years after an event, when key decision-makers and leaders may have left their jobs, retired or been voted out of office. Governments of a different political party may have been elected, with different priorities. If recommendations aren’t followed up, then the wider public starts to lose confidence in the entire process.  

I hope that won’t be the case with the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry and all the other inquiries underway in Scotland and the UK. From my experience, inquiries are staffed by dedicated professionals, with a strong sense of public duty, who want to answer the legitimate questions of those who have been harmed. Inquiries represent a big public investment in cost and time, including for those who have suffered loss or damage. However, the final cost of the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry will be a tiny fraction of the £26 billion in government spending on the pandemic in Scotland.  

The Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry is Scotland’s biggest ever public inquiry; the pandemic affected all 5.5 million people living in Scotland. When I speak to those who suffered bereavement, loss, or other damage from the pandemic, they often tell me that having the chance to share their experience in a public setting can help provide some closure, or at least a sense that they have been listened to and their suffering has been publicly acknowledged. That can be really important when there has been a big imbalance in power and individuals have been ignored or let down by governments.  

I applaud the courage of those who have provided testimonies to the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry. It is not easy to come into a large room of strangers, sit in front of a microphone and relive deeply traumatic experiences. The Scottish people rightly expect public inquiries to be robust and clear about the lessons to be learned. If our recommendations are shelved, then we are letting down all those individuals, for a second time.