A LEADING academic has said the public inquiry into coronavirus in Scotland should be heard by a judge from outside the country given the Lord Advocate’s role had been “unfortunately tarnished” by other investigations.
In an email to the Scottish Government, Professor Andrew Watterson who has been researching Covid-19, said such a move would give people confidence about its “impartiality, transparency and in its findings”.
While welcoming the inquiry announcement, Watterson, from the Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group at the University of Stirling, sought clarification on some aspects of the draft proposal.
On its independence, he said that as ministers will set the terms of reference, it did not appear that all areas the judge might want to explore will be covered.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon confirms statutory judge-led Covid inquiry will start later this year
The draft said ministers will decide the detail on “particular matters to be determined, for example whether the inquiry is being invited to review policy in a given area or consider the facts of a particular case”.
He asked: “Can the Scottish Government clarify that this will not mean certain matters will be beyond the terms of reference if the ministers so choose?
“Such terms of reference would hamstring the inquiry and greatly limit its value as well as contributing to possible public distrust of findings.”
Watterson noted the draft saying the inquiry’s purpose was to investigate events causing “public concern”, but that it was unclear how these would be identified and by whom.
He went on: “Concerns must surely include all Covid events in Scotland as they occurred from spring 2020 to the summer and autumn of 2021. This therefore would require the inquiry to look at lockdowns and delayed lockdowns and not just Covid cases and causes within the NHS and care homes.”
He said the sectors would include education, workplaces, transport and emergency services, as well as essential and key workers, and how policies such as working from home, physical distancing, ventilation, PPE selection and vaccination affected them. Pandemic planning pre-March 2020, would be critical, along with an examination of information the Scottish Government and its advisors obtained about Covid policies in countries where suppression had worked well.
Watterson said that while he understood the inquiry can only look at matters devolved to Scotland, pandemic events and policies here entailed much that had been devolved prior to the pandemic, during it and in new areas after March 2020.
READ MORE: Grassroots inquiry into Scotland's handling of Covid pandemic to be held
“An example of the former that will require scrutiny is vaccination policy because the Scottish Government is not bound by Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice,” said Watterson.
“An example of the latter would be the development by the Scottish Government of workplace guidance on Covid where the Health and Safety Executive did not take a UK-wide lead but left this to the public health bodies in the devolved countries.”
He added: “The Scottish Government has taken the lead on setting up an independent inquiry and it should not be delayed by waiting for the UK Government to begin an inquiry or preclude areas of investigation.”
The Scottish Government said discussions were under way with the Lord President to identify a judge to chair the inquiry, and referred The National to the consultation paper, which said: “A Scottish inquiry can only look into devolved matters in relation to Scotland.
“The inquiry will operate independently of government, but we will engage with people and their representatives to ensure its terms of reference cover issues that have caused concern.
“Stakeholder views, including the views of those bereaved during the pandemic, will be fundamental in reviewing the suggested approach to establishing a Covid-19 inquiry in Scotland and finalising the terms of reference.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel