 The next item of business is a statement by Hamza Yousaf on the conduct of reviews and inquiries. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Hamza Yousaf for 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a Government and a society, we are all committed to ensuring the delivery of public services that treat all people with kindness, with dignity and compassion. That respect the rule of law in individual rights and that they act in the open and transparent way. When something goes wrong in the delivery of public services, then actions should be taken as close to the point of delivery as possible with the opportunity for errors to be acknowledged and actions to be taken and lessons learnt promptly. However, in a small number of instances, the issues raised whether, due to the scale of the harm caused or, indeed, wider lessons to be learned can only be addressed appropriately through the initiation of a statutory public inquiry or, indeed, a focused review. Such inquiries and reviews place significant demands on the individuals affected and the organisations involved and should not be considered or progressed without careful consideration and planning. As cabinet secretary for justice, I therefore warmly welcome the work of Professor Alison Britton of Glasgow Caledonian University, who was commissioned by the then cabinet secretary for health and wellbeing to conduct a review into the process of establishing, managing and supporting independent inquiries and reviews in Scotland. Both I and my fellow ministers wish to thank and pay tribute to Professor Britton and her team for their efforts and for giving their time to produce a thorough, detailed and informative piece of work. It is a report that will assist in informing the decisions in the future about when to consider a formal inquiry or review and how they are commissioned and, indeed, conducted. The report makes a number of valuable recommendations and, in particular, is helpful in emphasising the importance of thinking very carefully in the critical early days when a review is a possibility to ensure that the right questions are being asked. What type of review or inquiry? How is the chair to be chosen? Is the remit being drawn with sufficient precision? Professor Britton was, of course, invited to undertake this review as a result of concerns expressed about the process of the independent review of transvaginal mesh implants that reported in March 2017. While Professor Britton has rightly highlighted the missteps taken during that review, it is important to make three things clear. First, in no sense do I wish to minimise where the mesh review went wrong, it is only fair to point out that Professor Britton's conclusion was, and I quote, "...we were satisfied that no one involved in the mesh review was acting in bad faith. On contrary, public citizenship and sense of duty were the main factors in volunteering to be part of the mesh review." Secondly, it is important to remember that Professor Britton's review did not re-examine the evidence that was looked at by the mesh review nor reconsider its findings. Indeed, Professor Britton noted, and I quote again, "...we found no evidence to support the claim that evidence was deliberately concealed." The statistical evidence that was considered by the mesh review was published in an internationally recognised medical journal, The Lancet, in December 2016. As such, the chief medical officer accepted the mesh review's recommendations at the time of the publication of the final report. Thirdly, it is important to recognise that the majority of reviews and inquiries are conducted carefully, efficiently and in a manner that commands public confidence. I say this with two current public inquiries that are currently under way very much in mind, firstly the Scottish child abuse inquiry and the inquiry looking into Edinburgh trans project. I also wish to be abundantly clear that nothing within Professor Britton's report casts any doubt on the work of any other reviews or inquiries and a response to the report while not in any way delay or have an impact on the work of the statutory inquiries currently under way. Before commenting further on Professor Britton's review and mindful of the fact that it was prompted by what happened during the mesh review, I want to say that I am deeply sorry that the suffering of those women affected by mesh has been compounded by what went wrong with the process of the review. Members will be aware that, in September, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport announced the temporary pause to all trans-vaginal mesh procedures. That temporary halt will be lifted only when a restricted use protocol is developed and in place. It will be informed by new evidence-based guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and will ensure that, in future, trans-vaginal mesh will only be used in the most limited of circumstances, subject to rigorous protests. Both the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and I hope that this action, which goes beyond that taken elsewhere, gives reassurance that this Government treats this issue with the utmost importance and goes some way towards addressing the disappointment felt after the mesh review. I will not address all Professor Britton's recommendations today, but I will touch on some. We are considering them carefully—all of them carefully—and I can guarantee that the experience of the mesh review will be used to inform all such future inquiries and reviews. The Scottish Government has developed guidance that will be available to all policy teams that are undertaking considerations of calls for review or inquiry. The guidance covers the early consideration that referred to a few moments ago. It also addresses the practicalities that come after the initial decision to hold a review. Does it need panel members to assist the chair? Where will suitable premises for the review be found? How will it be staffed? What IT support is required? Questions around transparency, accountability and partiality. How will good governance be ensured for matters such as the recording of decisions and the preservation of records for historical records? The guidance is near finalisation. I am happy for it to be published on the Scottish Government's website in due course. It will also be publicised internally so that a more consistent approach is taken across Government to consideration of those issues. In addition, my officials who have drafted the guidance are available as a source of advice and support when there is a matter of public concern that is given rise for calls for a review or inquiry. I am clear, however, that while we wish to achieve consistency, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sometimes it is obvious that nothing less than a full public inquiry is required to restore public confidence and, independently of Government, get to the bottom of what has gone wrong and how it can be avoided in the future. Public inquiries are not quick solutions. However, as I have said, they can place significant demands both on those who are affected and the organisations involved. Sometimes a well-focused review is reporting swiftly, albeit unhurried as a far preferable solution. Sometimes there are statutory bodies whose job is the independent scrutiny of a particular sector. For example, statutory inspectors play a vital role in identifying strengths and areas for improvement within certain key public services. That is the job that they are there to perform. Similarly, a fatal accident inquiry, conducted by a sheriff, is the right mechanism to establish the facts and learn lessons following an accident or sudden death. Decisions about whether to progress a fatal accident inquiry of course rests with Lord Advocate that other than those instances where such an inquiry is mandatory. The chair of an historic public inquiry identified the following elements of a successful inquiry. Interested parties would believe that a thorough inquiry into the issue that should cause public concern had been conducted with obvious fairness and that the final report was not overwritten or indeed under research. The interested parties would feel that they had been given an opportunity to present their views, that the inquiry reaches conclusions that are justified by the evidence and that the inquiry produces a report that people understand. I think that that summarises quite well the critical objectives of any review or indeed any inquiry. The review undertaken by Professor Bitten is of great assistance in ensuring that those objectives are achieved in every review and indeed every inquiry. I am determined that future inquiries and reviews learn the necessary lessons and ensure that those who have suffered harm and the country at large are confident that a fearless, independent and robust investigation has taken place. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement, and I will allow around 20 minutes for that. Would members who wish to ask a question please press their request-to-speak buttons now? I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Britain report will be valuable, not least in ensuring that the right questions are asked at the outset and to ensure that the parameters are clear. It is good to hear that the recommendations will be considered carefully and that guidance has been delivered. However, I wish to focus on a particular point that the cabinet secretary made. He said rightly that sometimes it is obvious that nothing less than a full public inquiry is required to restore public confidence and independently of government get to the bottom of what has gone wrong and how it can be avoided in the future. He is unquestionably right, which is why I was surprised and, dare I say, troubled to receiver's response to the joint letter from Willie Rennie, Daniel Johnson and I in which we called for a public inquiry into the tragic death of Craig McClendon. The cabinet secretary stated that he is not persuaded that a full public inquiry is the way forward and goes on to say that an inquiry is first to determine the details of what happened and to make recommendations that can help prevent a similar incident. He is absolutely right and, surely, that is applicable to the McClendon case. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what would it take to persuade him that this is one of those cases where nothing less than a full public inquiry is required to restore public confidence? What weight he accords to genuine cross-party calls for an inquiry? Will he not reconsider his decision to ensure that all lessons are learned and that tragic events can never happen again? I thank Liam Kerr for the question and the tone in which he asked the question. There is nothing that I can do to take away from the grief that the McClendon family has faced. I have met them on a number of occasions and three occasions to listen to their concerns and to help to assemble the information from relevant agencies and to gain a better understanding of the circumstances of Craig's death while also ensuring that wider lessons are learned. I think that Liam Kerr would accept that any decision to move forward a public inquiry or not is a very, very difficult one and one that has to be taken with extremely careful consideration. I would say to the members that the Scottish Prison Service, Police Scotland and indeed the Scottish Government, we accepted all 37 recommendations made by two independent inspectorate reviews that have already examined the home detention curfew scheme, which included looking at the circumstances of James Wright's release in the subsequent breach of HTC. As he rightly says, I have now written to the family of Craig McClendon and providing them further information and direct answers to the 34 questions that he asked of the Scottish Government. To add an element of independence scrutiny, I have asked both inspectorates as part of reviewing how their recommendations are being implemented to consider that response and those responses and whether they raise any further issues or concerns that may be needed to address. In some respects, I would answer the question in a slightly different way than perhaps Liam Kerr would. Are we ensuring that lessons have been learned from what was a terrible tragedy? Two independent inspectorate reports with 37 recommendations, all of which will be accepted and will lead to a change in the HTC regime. Some of those changes indeed, Liam Kerr has personally called for over a period of time. In the six-month review that will take place, if the inspectorates come back to me and say that there is further change that needs to be made and that there are further questions that need to be answered, then, at that point, once the six-month review is taken place, I will then, of course, be willing to have a further conversation on what more can be done. I thank the minister for the statement and Professor Britton for her very good report. I have been involved in forcing the Government to undertake three major reviews of policy, two on policing and one on transvaginal mesh. The first resulted in the police investigating the police. The second will report next year. However, as the mesh review that has caused me most angst, it was characterised by systematic and repeated failures, all identified by Professor Britton in her report. It was supposed to last one year that it lasted three. The chair resigned three and other panel members resigned. It was riddled with conflicts of interest. The chairs were chosen without any consideration into what skills were required. The review acted under directions from Scottish Government officials rather than autonomously. Subgroups were established, excluding some members of the review. Agendas were directed by officials. The final report excluded important information that was included in the draft report. Those are just some of a catalogue of errors and problems. Professor Britton's report is very good and exposes very serious failures. It proposes 46 recommendations for change. Will the Government implement all of those recommendations? The Government has had its reports since June. It was published in October. How many of those recommendations does the minister accept today? Is there any intention of revisiting the mesh review? After months, I think that today's statement is pretty pathetic. We do not want Government-written guidance. What we want is the full recommendations—all of them—of Professor Britton's report implemented. Will he bring us back to Parliament, or are the guidance to be sneaked out at some point? It is clear that the cabinet secretary wants to shelve his recommendations, and he wants to shelve the report, but we will not let him do that. I do not think that that is the intention at all, but I think that it would be trellish not to pay credit to the work that Neil Findlay has done, particularly in the plight of the women who have suffered in relation to transvaginal mesh. It would be trellish not to recognise that and to put that on the record. However, I do think that he is incorrect, and let me try to explain the reasons why. I did say very clearly that we would be publishing the guidance on the Scottish Government's website. I can make sure that he gets a copy to that link when it is published in terms. He asked me directly, and his question will be accepting all the recommendations. I would say that the vast, vast majority of them are absolutely there. I would say that there are a couple at least that I have an issue with, and I would be happy to have a discussion with the member, or, indeed, of course, the Parliament. That will be very obvious in the guidelines. For example, there are recommendations in there about having a centralised unit within the Scottish Government that is there for directing inquiries. I think that my own view still, and the Government's view is that it is still better done within portfolio, so it is the health portfolio that still takes a lead. For example, the transvaginal mesh would be the justice portfolio that would take forward, justice-related inquiries, and so on and so forth. There are some recommendations that, from a logistical and governance point of view, make sense absolutely to accept the vast majority, the vast bulk of them, but there are a couple to a few that I am still giving some further consideration to. Once that guidance is published, and he will get a copy of the link to that guidance, if he has further questions today, as on did the Opposition do, I will be open to those discussions. In terms of the review, many of the central recommendations to me make a lot of sense around the impartiality of members, the way in which we can be more transparent and remit in terms of reference and so on and so forth. In terms of the transvaginal mesh review, again, that would be a question for the health secretary, but no, the Government, of course, does not have, is not going to rerun the mesh review. The reasons for that, I would say, are a few. One that the process was looked at by Professor Britton, there was no re-examination of the evidence and the findings are, as I understand it, in line with findings from England, from Australia, from the EU. However, of course, the health secretary has put an effective temporary ban on using mesh and transvaginal procedures until a restricted protocol is in place, and that is an important outcome that I think would be welcomed by those across the chamber. Can I say to all members that the two opening questions have taken much more time than would normally be acceptable, but I allowed that because of their very important and sensitive nature? Unless other members are quick with their questions, and the minister is fairly quick with his answers, I will not be able to get everyone in who wants. First of all, Alison Johnstone, followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you. The Britain review found that the mesh review was ill-conceived, thoughtlessly structured and poorly executed, and also raised concerns about the wellbeing of those taking part in the review, saying that some members left meetings crying and were traumatised by the publication of the final review. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has said that he has determined that lessons are learned, but can the cabinet secretary advise what mechanisms will be put in place to prepare and to support people who can be taking part in what may be a very challenging process? I can say to Alison Johnstone that that will be part of the guidance and the guidelines there, but the point that she raises is hugely important. The reason why we have public inquiries in particular under the statute that we have, but we also review them, is that they are issues of huge importance to people. Often, they will be issues that will be controversial, but often they will be issues that will have huge emotional impacts on people as well. Further consideration of the wellbeing structures that we have put in place is absolutely part of the guidance and part of what we are thinking. I go back to the mesh review that Alison Johnstone specifically mentioned, to the point that I raised with Neil Findlay, not to labour the point at all, but in terms of the actual outcomes, I believe that the action that the health secretary has taken will be welcomed across the chamber, and there are the findings in line with other mesh reviews that have been conducted across the world. However, Alison Johnstone raises the central point that she makes about the wellbeing of those taking part in reviews that is absolutely critical and one that is not lost in this Government at all. Willie Rennie, followed by Rona Mackay. It is necessary to understand what has gone wrong before lessons can truly be learned. That has not happened in the Craig McIsland case. That is why we do need that public inquiry. The minister refers to fatal accident inquiries in his statement. One of Professor Britton's recommendations is about the speed of inquiries. We have still not had the fatal accident inquiry into the M9 crash and the Clutha inquiry will not happen until next April. What influence will the Britton review have on the speed of fatal accident inquiries in future? Just on the two points raised by Willie Rennie, I disagree with him on the case and point around the Craig McIsland case. There were two independent inspect that it reviews. There were 37 recommendations and the Government has not only accepted all those recommendations alongside the Scottish Police Service and Police Scotland, but we have changed the HDC process and we will look to see how we can further perform the HDC process. I think that it would be wrong to suggest that lessons have not been learned. Where there are further questions, Opposition members and others can come to me directly with those questions or to SPS or Police Scotland. We will do our best to answer them. If they need independent scrutiny, there is a role perhaps from HMICS and HMIPS to play in that. On the second point, I would say to him that he knows very well that FAIs are, of course, under the remit of the Lord Advocate. It was not specifically the focus of Professor Britton's review, which is inquiries and reviews. We have, of course, as a Government, given money to the Crown to help to speed up fatal accident inquiries, but undoubtedly it has been raised by many members to me across the chamber and no doubt to Lord Advocate. Clearly, there is a further discussion to be had about how we can speed up the many FAIs that are still outstanding, while not directly a part of the review that continues to be conversations with myself and Lord Advocate on this matter. Rona Mackay, followed by Mairsbury. The executive summary of the investigative review states, and I quote, "...we were satisfied that no one involved in the mesh review was acting in bad faith. How do we ensure that the best of intentions when conducting reviews results in the right outcomes?" I hear Neil Findlay implementing the report. He is absolutely right. We will look to absolutely implement the vast majority of recommendations— Mr Findlay, it is someone else's question. I can hear him again about all of them. We have a genuine concern around a couple or, as I said, maybe even a few of the recommendations, but the vast bulk of the majority of them we will absolutely accept. If members wish to come back and ask the reasons why we have not accepted all of them, I am more than open to having that conversation on Rona Mackay's question specifically. The answer lies in the Britain report and in the guidance that we are developing. By following steps about ensuring that the right people are appointed, that they have the right support, by drawing up a remit carefully and appropriately, by identifying conflicts and managing them at an early stage, then we can ensure that reviews command the public confidence. I reiterate that that is what happens in the overall majority of cases, but clearly we want every single one of our inquiries and reviews to command public confidence. Miles Briggs, followed by Gil Paterson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is clear from what we have heard today that the devil is going to be in the detail of those recommendations. The Scottish Government, as we have heard, is currently working on guidance to be published, but it is important that we get that right so that the public can have confidence in the system. Can I ask two specific points with regard to impartiality and also a recommendation being put in place to identify potential conflicts of interest? What work is the Government doing to take that forward? Will he share that with parties before the recommendations are published? We have been considering the report since its publication. The answers will be in the guidelines. I have to say that, having looked at the report in great detail, both the points around impartiality and conflict of interest are well made in the report. We are giving serious consideration to them and they will leave us in a better place when it comes to the conduct of inquiries and reviews in the future. I am very clear that those points around impartiality and potential for conflict of interest, which are related to public confidence, are ones that will be explicit in the guidelines that we produce and, of course, if the member wishes to have further conversations, he can. However, I think that there are two important points raised by Professor Britton, reiterated by Miles Briggs, and certainly the Government views them as helping us to make a better, more robust, more transparent and more accountable process of inquiries and reviews going forward. I have to say that I am not seeing answers and questions being any shorter or snappier than usual. Gil Paterson, followed by Neil Bibby. As a Cabinet Secretary knows, reviews often involve personal tragedies. How can we ensure that reviews are always realistic in what they can achieve so that those who have experienced life-changing events have clarity about what the reviews can indeed achieve? That is a really important point. We do not want to raise unrealistic expectations in its incumbent upon all of us. I think that Professor Britton's report touches on this. It is incumbent upon politicians, media and others to temper those expectations, of course, because they often will be around controversial issues, issues that carry a huge emotional impact for individuals. We must be, of course, absolutely robust when it comes to the transparency, when it comes to the independence, when it comes to the fearless nature of inquiries and reviews. That does not mean that all stakeholders will like the answers on the back of inquiries or reviews. Self-evidently, review cannot heal a loss, but where there has been a tragedy, it is right that we seek to find out the truth in that matter. Reviews and inquiries are not there, of course, to allocate either criminal or civil blame or hope people to account. That is a point that does need to be made perhaps more clear from the outset. Neil Bibby, followed by Fulton Greger. The attempt by the justice secretary a week before Christmas to dismiss calls for a public inquiry into the failures that led to the murder of Craig Macleiland is as shameful as it is insensitive. Two reviews have indicated 37 failures, but they have not answered Craig's family's most important questions about why those failures were allowed to happen. Why were those failures allowed to happen, minister? Given that you have been unable to answer that and we do not know why, then, do you continue to know the calls of Craig's family and a majority of parties in this chamber for a full inquiry? Can I say how disappointing it is that Neil Bibby has chosen to politicise it and characterise the issue and the death in this particular way? I find that shameful more than anything. I find that really, really, not just shameful but incredibly upsetting. I have met the family on three occasions. The family then wrote to me with 34 questions. Mr Bibby, would you stop please, cabinet secretary? Mr Bibby, would you stop shouting from a sedentary position, please? Handle yourself. The family then wrote to me and to SPS and Police Scotland with 34 questions, and those responses to those questions have been given to the family. However, as an additional level of independence, I have asked the inspectors, both HMICS and HMIPS, to look over those responses. If, within the six-month review that they are doing, those answers raise further issues that must be looked at, the Government will be absolutely open to looking at what those further issues may or may not be. Those are difficult questions to answer. Of course, they are difficult. The decision that I have made bears no weight at all to the grief that the McLeodan family has suffered. I do not take that away. He can shout from a sedentary position all he wants, but he should recognise that those are not easy decisions to make. Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Mr Bibby, would you kindly stop being so rude, unlike the cabinet secretary, to finish his answer? I finish on the point that Professor Britton's report suggests that politicians and media should be careful not to fuel unreal expectations when it comes to inquiries and reviews. I would just say to Neil Bibby that the politicisation of the issue is completely wrongheaded. Fulton MacGregor. The investigative review describes that media involvement, among other things, can often create pressure or emotional stress for members' offer of view. Following on from the last question, what lessons can be learned about how to manage this inevitable feature of prominent reports in the future? I think that a key learning point is that there is consideration of whether the subject matter is likely to give rise to strong media interest. In most cases, when we do an inquiry or a review, there will be an intense amount of media and political scrutiny. If it is, then, as Professor Britton recommends, there should be support, advice and perhaps even media training, which she suggests being made available to the chair and that the panel members are required. However, I will also go back to Alison Johnston's point, which is important that the appropriate support and the wellbeing structures are there for those taking part. I can allow one more question. Gordon Lindhurst. The question of the length of inquiries has already been raised by Willie Rennie. If we think of the Edinburgh trams inquiry, the question that I would like to put to the minister is this. Will consideration be given to setting in advance of inquiries being conducted? The length of times those inquiries will take, how long they will be allowed and also the question of the budgets that will be spent on those inquiries. Can I just make an important point of clarification to Gordon Lindhurst? Willie Rennie was asking about fatal accident inquiries. It is really important that we do not conflate fatal accident inquiries on inquiries and reviews. On the Edinburgh trams inquiry as an example, I will not go into that specific, but it is really important that this inquiry looks to detail as much transparency and accountability around inquiries and reviews. If a Government minister was to limit the budget and the time of inquiry, the question would be, is it being done in a rushed manner? Is it being limited in terms of its scope? Is it the Government interfering in a way that is unnecessary? The trams inquiry would be an example of where there were literally millions of documents—6 million, if I remember correctly, but literally millions of documents. If I had limited, or if a previous minister or cabinet secretary had made that decision, had limited the amount of time or, indeed, the budget for the trams inquiry, then they might not have been able to examine and explore those 6 million documents in the detail that they have to be. I would be concerned. I understand that point and I understand where it comes from and from a good place. I think around trying to get to the answers and to the truth as quickly as we can, but I would have concerns about limitations because I think that that could be limiting and rushing, I should say, an inquiry or a review. That concludes the ministerial statement on the conduct of reviews and inquiries. I am sorry that Stuart Stevenson, Daniel Johnson and Tom Arthur were not able to be called, but perhaps all members could consider the time they take to ask questions and answers.