³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Would you agree with one of our previous witnesses who suggested that perhaps one of the reasons for the growth in public inquiries is the perception that Government agencies have been failing to address specific questions, leading to frustration among victims or people who are demanding a public inquiry that their questions are not being answered in channels in which they should have been answered? I think that we can all name public inquiries that are examples of that. Is that a serious problem?

Before I ask my questions, it is important that I put on record that I am heavily involved with the Eljamel inquiry in Scotland.

Ms McKee, you gave a very interesting answer to the convener. You said that you feel that, when it comes to some public inquiries, the terms of reference are not always absolutely accurate, because they have to be dealt with very quickly. Can you give us some examples of where you feel that the terms of reference have maybe not been as accurate as they might have been?

That would be helpful, because one of the issues—it is a genuine issue—in the Eljamel inquiry relates to constitutional differences. What would happen under the legislation in Scotland is different from what would happen under the Inquiries Act 2005, meaning that the terms of reference of a Scottish public inquiry would not necessarily tie up with the terms of reference of a UK inquiry. However, if evidence emerges that UK bodies were involved in some aspects of the Scottish situation and, therefore, by definition, should be investigated, ensuring that the UK and the Scottish inquiries are aligned will become a very important matter. I think that that has happened with the Covid inquiry, and it has certainly happened with the infected blood scandal inquiry. Do you have a view as to how a Scotland body would be able to have a really good, strong working relationship with the UK body in respect of the terms of reference?

I am asking that question because it is very important to establish exactly why there has been a growth in the number of public inquiries, because that has a cost implication. However, if it is the case—I am not saying that it is—that one reason for their increase is that complaints have not been dealt with in the forum in which they should have been, we need to take that very seriously. If were are talking about an issue that should have been dealt with by a health board or whoever, it might not have gone to a public inquiry.

Okay. Thank you.

Would a circumstance in which you could foresee a possible change to the terms of reference, such as their expansion, be information coming to light from a different part of the jurisdiction that was being investigated?

Is the better process that you have mentioned simply about transparency, or does something else have to happen?

Might there be some scope for cost reduction in following that approach?

I am making the point because I am quite sure that the Scottish Government, including you, will be under huge financial pressure to make difficult choices when it comes to social security. If universalism proves not to get the uptake that you would like, I would have thought that it might be an area for a slightly more targeted approach.

Two weeks ago, I was at a meeting with NFU Scotland in Perthshire, and it was reported that, in two of the local authorities in my area, the amount of food that is being sent back at the end of a school day is pretty grim. That suggests either that the school meals are not of sufficient quality that the youngsters want to take them or that families are still sending them to school with their own lunch.

I understand what you say about the stigma, although I think that the situation is very much better nowadays, with modern technology and so on solving the problem that pupils used to have when they had to take along a ticket, which was far worse. That problem is diminished because of new technology. When it comes to the choices that are made for universal policies, the evidence about whether that universal policy is hitting in all the right places is important.

In the evidence that we have taken, we have people asking for an increase of at least double in the child payment, the extension of free school meals, an increase in the value of the school clothing grant, an increase in funding of affordable housing and an expanding of free childcare—the list goes on. It would be nice to do all those things, but we cannot. I am sure that the Scottish Fiscal Commission will come out with that this afternoon. Is the Government doing any analysis of the effectiveness of universal policy?

Thank you for that. We have had the debate before about how far we can extend universalism on many things, because of the financial implications, but the Government looking at the real evidence of where the targets are most effective would be very beneficial.