Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—I should know better after 27 years. I will start again. Mr Ross should at least have some idea of how to quantify the cost to the public purse on a recurring basis. There are hidden things in the bill about mitigation and so on. There might be claims for damages against the Government. There is a lot of stuff in there. It opens up, if I may use the term in the context of gulls, a can of worms.

I begin by sending my heartfelt condolences to the families affected, especially those with children. As a parent and grandparent, I cannot imagine their pain and loss, which I know will have no end.

I thank those who fought for a full determination of what happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I have challenged Anas Sarwar on rerunning a live inquiry that is structured strictly in terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007. It has taken five years, and that period was no doubt extended by the Covid pandemic. Evidence to the inquiry has just concluded with parties’ closing statements. I submit that the inquiry’s approach has been thorough. Its report is to be issued later this year.

Commentary on the evidence is unavoidable, but commentary on the outcome is not helpful; for me, it undermines confidence in the independent inquiry process. I despair at anyone politicising this extremely distressful and serious issue, so I repeat that the cabinet secretary decides the remit and the terms of reference, consulting the appointed inquiry chair on those terms of reference before they are finalised and published. That is the end of the Government’s involvement in the running of the inquiry. From then on, the chair is wholly responsible for conducting the investigation within that agreed remit and those references.

There is a robust legal statutory framework to guarantee, in the interests of everyone, the independence of a public inquiry. This inquiry is chaired by Lord Brodie, who is a judge of the inner house, operating independently, but with the authority to call witnesses and review evidence, including from Government ministers, and to compel attendance of witnesses. I therefore take issue with the part of the Labour motion that says:

“recognises that … many serious questions remain regarding the decision-making process and the role of the Scottish Government”

and

“considers that political decision making should be considered by the inquiry”.

In fact, Anas Sarwar recently called for John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon to give evidence to the inquiry. That is political interference. Is Anas Sarwar suggesting that Lord Brodie has failed to call witnesses, and that his chairmanship is questionable or inadequate and not independent of politics?

Lord Brodie can call whom he wants and decide what documents and exchanges he sees, and he can compel any witness that he wants to come to the inquiry. The question in the chamber is, therefore: does the Parliament have confidence in Lord Brodie? That is a very serious question. Current political commentary on whom to ultimately blame is unavoidable, and I accept that—[Interruption.]

I hope that I did not overhear some—

Of course, I do not speak for the minister; I will leave him to deal with that. I will not be here in the next parliamentary session as I am retiring, and neither will Douglas Ross. If the proposal is not progressed, committee members in the next parliamentary session can ensure that it is followed up.

If I were a member in the next session, I would pursue the issue if the minister does not follow through on it, because it is not a big deal. It is a simple thing to explain to people who are upset and disappointed so that they know why, where they went wrong, and whether there is something in the guidance that they could have done better, so that they do not rush to put in their application only for it to be rejected on eligibility grounds or as a result of the checking that goes on afterwards. I seem to recall—the minister will undoubtedly correct me—that some people were claiming twice for certain items. That has to be cleared up.

I will leave it at that. I supported what was said in the debate that I referred to earlier, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to put the measures in primary legislation.

Will Anas Sarwar take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hesitate to intervene in this way, but I have concerns about the fact that although the inquiry has yet to report, what I am hearing, to some extent, is a rerun of the evidence and the suggesting of other evidence. The whole point of the inquiry is to be wholly independent of any political nuances, suggestions or whatever.

I seek your guidance on whether you consider that Mr Sarwar is now stepping into an area that he should not step into.

I will certainly endeavour to be brief—I am weary.

In the section that amendment 172 would insert, on the national energy convention, subsection (2)(b) says:

“hear from the local community in the area affected by the proposed structure.”

Subsection (3) says:

“The Convention”—

this is the key here—

“must include members who are representative of all areas of Scotland.”

I do not know who those people are. We have community councillors, local authority councillors and MSPs, but who are the people envisaged in the amendment? Are they elected? Are they self-selected? This is legislation—we cannot just slap in something so unspecific, which then becomes law.

The section that amendment 175 would insert says:

“Before the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the day after Royal Assent, the Scottish Ministers must meet with all regional energy convention groups”.

Who are these groups? Are they elected? Are they self-selected? I have no problem with increasing consultation with communities, because there is an issue, which I have raised at First Minister’s question time, with proliferation, and especially the cumulative impact of projects. However, we cannot put in legislation such general words—there is no specificity.

Perhaps Rachael Hamilton will tell me who those regional energy convention groups are. What size are they? How many are there? Who are the people mentioned? Are they elected? I would like to know.

I will take an intervention—[Interruption.]

Is the member actually saying that Lord Brodie is incompetent to chair the inquiry?

Instead of being called to intervene, I will take this opportunity, if I may, to speak to the amendments in the group.

I was not invited to the convention. If I had been invited and had been unable to attend—remember, I was not invited—I would certainly have sent my apologies.