Official Report 396KB pdf
::The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20893, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
I call Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, to speak to and move the motion. You have a generous eight minutes, Mr Gibson.
14:26
::I thank you, Presiding Officer, and members of the Conveners Group, for helping to enable this debate to take place.
I am delighted to open the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. In the short time that is available, I can but touch on what is an in-depth and detailed 73-page report, which I recommend to all members.
Our scrutiny, which was completed over nine months last year, marked the first time that a Scottish Parliament committee has examined statutory public inquiries in depth. We sought to bring greater understanding of the current position of public inquiries in Scotland, looking at their purpose, terms of reference, timescales and costs, as well as their recommendations and their cost-effectiveness more generally. The merits or recommendations of individual public inquiries were not considered as part of our scrutiny.
In addition to written evidence, we held 10 oral evidence sessions and two informal engagement sessions, hearing from stakeholders and academics from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand, from people with lived experience of public inquiries and from civil servants and public inquiry staff. We again thank all those who provided evidence to help to shape our conclusions and recommendations. I also thank my committee colleagues and our hard-working, dedicated and effective clerking team for their sterling efforts throughout this process.
Statutory public inquiries are a powerful and important mechanism of accountability. They investigate issues of major public concern, which are often triggered by disasters, systemic failures or circumstances that can erode public trust. They have the power to compel evidence.
In the past 18 years, Scottish ministers have commissioned 11 statutory public inquiries, with six continuing. Another was announced only yesterday, albeit with no apparent budget or timescale. Of the on-going inquiries, four have been running for more than four years. Indeed, the Scottish child abuse inquiry has been on-going for more than a decade. The cost to Scotland’s public purse has been more than £258 million since 2007. Across the UK, the figure is six times that much.
Our scrutiny found that public inquiries remain an essential mechanism for holding public bodies to account, reviewing past wrongs, identifying solutions and recommending policy changes. Nevertheless, the current system is overstretched and poorly defined. Inquiries often lack a core objective, whether that is in forensic investigation, policy reform or truth telling. Instead, they often attempt to perform all those functions with ever-expanding timescales, costs and expectations.
::The member suggested that we should be learning lessons, but if an inquiry such as the Edinburgh trams inquiry takes nine years, it is too late for those lessons to be learned, is it not?
::John Mason makes an important point. That is one of the reasons why we are looking to have public inquiries on shorter timescales and with defined budgets. As I will go on to say, that happens in other countries.
We have asked the Scottish Government for clear guidance to set out the core purpose, scope and limitations of public inquiries and to inform defined timescales and budgets at the point of establishment. Ministers have limited ability to control expenditure and limit spiralling costs once an inquiry is up and running. Indeed, it appears to be the only area of public expenditure in which costs and timescales are of little importance.
International examples show that that does not have to be the case. In Sweden, since 1982, public inquiries have been expected to conclude within two years and within a set budget. That includes very detailed inquiries—not least, for example, the inquiry into the MS Estonia ferry disaster, in which 852 lives were lost, and, of course, Sweden’s own Covid inquiry.
We therefore asked the Scottish Government to amend the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 to require defined budgets and timescales for inquiries, and for Parliament to be notified, with justification, of any extensions that are provided. In the longer term, we have asked Scottish ministers to work with the UK Government to update the Inquiries Act 2005, to make that a primary legislative requirement. It is disappointing that our recommendation has not been accepted. Instead, ministers will continue to consider on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis whether terms of reference need to be explicit on anticipated timescales.
The Scottish Government’s response suggests that there is a statutory duty for the chair to avoid unnecessary costs and to ensure that the running of the inquiry is adequate. Our evidence is clear that current rules are insufficient to contain spiralling inquiry costs. We ask for better information and greater transparency around the running of public inquiries and the decision‑making processes that lead to their establishment, including a clear framework that requires alternatives to be considered first.
The committee is also concerned that the current practice of appointing serving judges to chair public inquiries places significant strain on Scotland’s civil and criminal courts. If three or four of our 36 judges are taken out of circulation to preside over inquiries, 10 per cent of criminal cases are likely to face delays. When one considers that a judge handles, on average, 34 criminal cases a year, that is a substantial number of cases that will not be heard when they should be. Therefore, greater consideration of an inquiry’s opportunity costs is essential, and I will touch on that again shortly.
Evidence has shown that trusted policy experts have successfully chaired inquiries in the UK and internationally. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government strengthen its guidance to ensure that all options—legal chairs, expert chairs and expert panels—are considered when launching an inquiry.
Although we welcome the Deputy First Minister’s openness to appointing inquiry chairs who are not serving members of the judiciary, that has not been the practice of the Scottish Government to date. We ask that, when establishing future inquiries, ministers clearly set out the reasoning behind their choice of chair and the criteria and alternatives considered, which should reflect the purpose of the inquiry and the skill set that is required.
We further ask for enhanced guidance on drafting terms of reference and better support for chairs once they are appointed. Chairs sometimes reinvent the wheel, so there is a clear need for proper induction and training, adoption of best practice and adequate support for both inquiry teams and the public bodies that are impacted by public inquiries. The Scottish Government’s response is positive on reviewing guidance and on improving transparency, but it does not commit to making the specific changes that we seek. That includes carrying out a short research project on drafting and amending terms of reference in advance of the next parliamentary session.
Redirecting funds to inquiries can impact on public service delivery. The Scottish Government should establish a central budget for public inquiries to avoid further strain on specific public services. For example, the Scottish Police Federation was very clear in evidence about the impact that inquiries can have on front-line policing, so we disagree with the Scottish Government’s position that the administration of public inquiries should be funded via the sponsoring ministerial portfolio, and we do not accept that moving to a central budget arrangement would risk reducing incentives for public bodies to manage costs and be the most efficient manager, as the Government suggests. Where is the evidence for that?
Finally, but importantly, we are concerned about the serious lack of transparency in how public inquiry recommendations are implemented, if at all. We urge the Scottish Government to establish a robust, transparent system for tracking and public reporting on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Members can learn more about the Scottish Government’s response when the deputy convener winds up for the committee.
Our findings and recommendations were designed to strike a balance between allowing flexibility to meet the unique circumstances of individual public inquiries while strengthening financial control and promoting fiscal sustainability. I welcome the Scottish Government’s generally positive reception to our report, but I am disappointed that it has fallen short of accepting many of the concrete, practical and evidenced actions that our committee recommended.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 14th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on the Cost-effectiveness of Scottish Public Inquiries (SP Paper 943).
::I call Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister. You have a generous seven minutes.
14:34
::I begin by thanking the committee for its detailed scrutiny of this important issue and for the considered set of conclusions and recommendations that it delivered in its report. There is a lot in the report that the Scottish Government agrees with, and I hope that, in the course of today’s debate, all parties across the chamber will be able to find common ground on how to improve the cost effectiveness of the public inquiry system in Scotland.
I hear what the convener says about the areas where he is disappointed that more recommendations have not been accepted or have been only partially accepted. I will address aspects of those in my comments, but I want to set out that there is a much longer-term opportunity to implement some of those recommendations, particularly in the light of the fact that there will be a new parliamentary session and, indeed, a new Government after the election—albeit, I hope, a Parliament with the same representatives.
::It would be interesting for the committee to know where the report was considered. Did the Cabinet discuss the strategic impact of public inquiries on public services, and were the recommendations considered in full by the Cabinet?
::Generally, when a committee writes to a cabinet secretary, the cabinet secretary takes responsibility for the response. It will be carefully considered by officials, and we then compile the response. I never think that the initial response is the end of the matter. There is always quite a lot in my response that identifies how we will explore or consider things further. My hope is that we will be able to provide an update on the recommendations that are being taken forward.
::I understand what the Deputy First Minister is saying, but Mr Marra has asked an important question. If there is to be radical change, as the committee has suggested and as the Deputy First Minister talked about in her evidence, decisions must be taken pretty soon—not least because of the fiscal implications, which I know the Scottish Government has concerns about. Does she agree with that?
::It is a general, long-standing protocol that ministers should not disclose their conversations at Cabinet, so I am trying to recognise that. I can reassure members that I have had conversations with my colleagues on these matters. However, what is discussed at Cabinet remains within the minutes of Cabinet until it is disclosed 15 years later, as a general rule.
::I cannot wait. [Laughter.]
::I was going to say at the outset, before the interventions, that I want to put on record that my written response to the committee and my contribution today do not signal any change to the terms of reference or operational arrangements for any current Scottish public inquiry. I hope that that will avoid any misunderstanding about our absolute commitment to the completion of those extremely important inquiries and to their operational independence, which, as inquiry chairs frequently remind ministers, is paramount.
::Will the Deputy First Minister give way?
::I will, because I love a good debate.
::The Deputy First Minister says that she does not want to interfere in existing public inquiries—which is fair enough—but we started a new one yesterday, and I asked whether a timescale and a budget could not be placed on it. Basically, the answer was no. Why could we not have done that for new inquiries?
::I think that Jenny Gilruth might have alluded to this yesterday—if she did not, I hope that this is not breaking news—but we want to ensure that any new inquiries are extremely focused and are able to take into account the points that the committee has identified on timescales and budget. That has certainly been a matter of discussion.
::[Made a request to intervene.]
::Why not? I will give way to Michelle Thomson.
::I think that I just beat Craig Hoy to it in making an intervention. John Mason has made a valid comment. In addition to having a tightly drawn scope, which I think is what she is alluding to, would the Deputy First Minister be prepared to take on some of our other recommendations, principally on the publication of all costs and moneys paid to individual lawyers, so that the public can see how much money they are making from these inquiries?
::Deputy First Minister, I can give you the time back.
::I have some sympathy with the point about maximum transparency in the publication of costs. There will be some areas that are more sensitive than others in that regard, which is why, in our response, we identified that point. However, my commitment is to look at where we can go further on transparency, even if some areas are slightly more complex than others.
Would Craig Hoy still like to make an intervention?
::The minister had moved on from it slightly, but I will go back to the issue of costs, and specifically to the case that we heard about from the Scottish Police Federation. The new public inquiry that was announced yesterday will put additional strain on police resources. Does the minister accept that the police perhaps have a special case to plead, because they seem to be drawn into almost all public inquiries? If the Government will not look at the sponsor framework arrangement, will it perhaps look at a specific budget line for Police Scotland to be able to deal with the significant costs of dealing with public inquiries?
::Those issues certainly need to be taken into account in the annual budget debates, and there should also be a recognition of the costs that the police face. It is worth repeating what I said at committee: for the past few months, the Parliament has been relatively united in pushing the Government to hold another public inquiry. When I put that to the committee, Michael Marra said that it is ultimately for the Government to take responsibility for the decisions that it makes. That is fair, but it also bears repeating that the Parliament should take responsibility, on all budget matters, for what it calls for and how that is to be funded.
I am probably out of time, having not really commenced my speech at all—
::Will the minister take an intervention?
::I hate to let the convener down, but I probably need to make some progress. I will do that first, and then if the Presiding Officer is feeling generous—
::I reassure you, Deputy First Minister, that we have adequate time in hand, so you can take another intervention, if you are so minded.
::In that case, I would love to take another intervention from the convener.
::My understanding is that, for some three years, the English inquiry has been focused for on completing its findings and that it has a £65 million budget. It is dipping its toe in the water of timescale and budget limitations. We should surely do the same.
::I will come to the committee’s recommendations, because I am aware of the committee’s call on that time-limited aspect. There are good examples that demonstrate that that is not always the best idea, such as the one that I provided in committee: I absolutely support the fact that the Scottish child abuse inquiry has taken longer than three years. When it was first established, it probably did not envisage the scale of the evidence that would come forward. It was vital that the inquiry was allowed to run its course and to take all the evidence that it did. Few among us would not be horrified by what has been uncovered in that regard.
::I thank the minister for taking a record number of interventions, but one of the points that the committee has made is that the Government can set an initial budget and timescale and, if necessary, can always come back to the Parliament to explain why additional funding or a longer timescale is required. Would that not be a better methodology than letting the inquiry last as long as it wants and letting it cost as much as it wants to spend?
::The example that I gave of the Scottish child abuse inquiry entirely meets those criteria. Members might recall that there was a relatively fixed timescale at the outset, which was then extended. My officials have provided me with other examples in which ministers have sought to specify, in an inquiry’s terms of reference, a fixed date by which it must report, but then the time limit has then had to be extended, as happened with the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry. We are conscious that that can be done currently.
The legislative basis on which the system is founded is the Inquiries Act 2005, which is intended to provide a comprehensive statutory framework for inquiries to be set up. As the committee notes, that is a UK-wide act, which confers powers not only on the Scottish ministers but on their UK, Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts. If it is considered necessary or desirable, the Scottish Parliament can legislate to amend the current statutory framework for public inquiries on devolved matters in Scotland.
The committee called for information to be made clear and accessible to the public. That is absolutely right, especially when it comes to managing public expectations around the purpose of inquiries. Some of the committee’s recommendations are very easy to accept, such as having a dedicated web page that brings together published information on public inquiries and on conflicts of interest. Ministers and civil servants must comply with existing codes of conduct, but we will review the guidance to ensure that risks are clearly identified and well managed.
I agree that ministerial statements establishing a public inquiry should set out the rationale clearly, and I can confirm that any relevant ministerial interest will be declared.
On the appointment of chairs, we are very open to candidates who come from both judicial and non-judicial backgrounds.
I note that we have already discussed the comments on reporting timescales. We think that it is absolutely right that, on some occasions, there should be a clearer approach to requiring explicit anticipated timescales. Where the terms of reference are set, it is up to the chair to consider how an inquiry fulfils its terms of reference. There is a balance in ensuring that the inquiry chair is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads; where a timescale has been indicated and the chair then feels that they do not need to use the full amount of time, or that they need to extend it, a discussion with ministers is needed.
Interim reports can be invaluable—those in the Scottish child abuse inquiry have certainly been invaluable—instead of waiting until the final module for the full report.
We will come back to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on any other ways in which we can strengthen the point around timescales, because I can see the argument on that.
There was a recommendation to establish a central public inquiries unit. That requires careful consideration, given the unpredictable nature of inquiry work, but we will consider where we can streamline to a greater extent the support from across Government that is given to inquiries.
Public accountability in this area is essential. Although inquiry independence prevents us from reporting on performance, I accept the need for clearer reporting on expenditure, as Michelle Thomson just outlined, and on progress in implementing any recommendations from a public inquiry. In response to Michelle Thomson and the committee, I say that we will explore more options for a public-facing resource that outlines what the costs are. That will be subject to some of the sensitivities, but we will set that out.
That was my speech, given at record speed, Presiding Officer. I hope that that indicates that we are open, transparent and accessible to the scrutiny of the Parliament.
::It also confirmed that your interpretation of generosity was closer to matching mine than Mr Gibson’s was. With that, I call Liz Smith to speak for around six minutes.
14:47
::I declare an interest in that I am a witness to the Eljamel public inquiry, which began in 2025.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report makes it very clear in paragraph 77 that
“Public inquiries are an essential mechanism for holding public bodies to account”,
because they are designed to get to the truth about certain harms and failures to support victims, and because they make valuable recommendations about future policy.
The convener has rightly outlined that there is a particular concern about the spiralling costs of public inquiries and the burden that that is placing on the taxpayer. It is not just about the direct costs but, as the convener said, the opportunity costs. My colleague Craig Hoy mentioned the concern that, for some inquiries, there is so much work being done by Police Scotland in the backroom that that is taking officers away from preventing crime and catching offenders.
We know that the spiralling cost of inquiries is becoming excessive, with inquiries having cost nearly £260 million since 2007. My perspective on the whole debate has always been that it is important to try to understand why the number of public inquiries has increased and why the accompanying costs have increased to such a degree, especially in recent cases.
I was very taken by the evidence that was given to us in relation to all that by John Sturrock KC. He said that he felt that there were basically four reasons for the increasing demand for public inquiries: an increasing “culture of blame” among the public; diminishing trust in public institutions; a lack of understanding about the role of public inquiries; and an increasing tendency for the Government to think that such inquiries might be the best way to address a complex problem. He offered the view that, in principle, inquiries engender a high degree of trust among the public, most especially those that are judge led. They are often regarded as one of the only means of holding a Government to account when there have been serious breaches of trust.
::Will Liz Smith take an intervention?
::Will the member give way?
::If I am allowed to take both interventions, I will take Mr Mason’s first.
::Thank you.
Liz Smith makes the reasonable point that there is a lot of trust in public inquiries. Would she say that there is a risk that, if there are too many and they take too long, such trust might be lost?
::I agree entirely. I will come on to the point about why we are in danger of losing trust because of the increasing number of public inquiries, but I will turn to Mr Whitfield first.
::My intervention is almost a follow-on: Liz Smith talked about the confidence that the public have in judge-led inquiries. There is very little evidence of access in Scotland to non-judge-led inquiries. One challenge is that the public seek judges to lead inquiries because of their independence from the Government, the Parliament and society. How do we square that circle?
::That is an excellent point. It gets to the nub of the issue that we face, which is that a lot of the reason why we have seen an increase in the number of public inquiries comes down to failing trust in public institutions—not only in the Government, but in the agencies that operate on its behalf. That means that those people who are victims or the families of victims see the only way forward as being to have a judge-led public inquiry—which, in some instances, might not be the best thing to do. Martin Whitfield is spot on with that comment.
With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I refer again to my initial statement that I am a witness in the Eljamel inquiry. The points that John Sturrock made are relevant to the situation that we find ourselves in. He mentioned the increasing culture of blame among the public and the diminishing trust in public institutions. I am firmly of the view that one of the biggest factors is—sadly—the belief among many members of the public that the Government and its agencies are failing to provide victims with the answers that they need. No doubt, that is the reason why another public inquiry into grooming gangs was announced yesterday.
I am not able to comment on what I have submitted in my witness statement to the Eljamel inquiry. However, I will say what I have repeated many times in the chamber and to the media: a decade on from when I became involved in the inquiry, and after literally hundreds of letters, emails, meetings and engagements with the Government and its agencies—including no fewer than five health secretaries, three First Ministers and a health board that has had seven different chief executives in that time—I was not able to provide answers to key questions that the patients had asked me. From listening to recent exchanges in the chamber about the Queen Elizabeth university hospital issue, I think that that is happening in that situation, too.
That lack of transparency within the Government and public bodies is one reason why there is increasing demand for public inquiries. Alongside that, and just as importantly, there is the time factor. It is little wonder that, when you attend a public inquiry—as I have done twice—the audience is replete with lawyers, with their expenses running up, on the clock. As the convener made clear, there is a concern that, too often, we see the reinvention of the wheel when it comes to background support. If we could do something to ration that, it would be immensely helpful in trying to reduce costs.
The other issue that John Sturrock mentioned is just as concerning: namely, that some public inquiries can be seen by the Government, for whatever reason, as a convenient excuse to get difficult and complex issues off its desk in order to buy time. The Deputy First Minister and I had an exchange on that issue in committee—she is aware of that situation and I hope that she will take on board the concern.
This is an important issue and we have to decide what we are going to do about it. Obviously, it will be the next Parliament that will decide how to reform the system—assuming that that is what it will do. It is important to reflect on the changes that could be made closer to home, to stem the need for public inquiries and to reduce their timescales and costs—including looking at other jurisdictions, as the convener mentioned. As I said at the start, public inquiries are an essential part of our democracy because of the way in which they hold the Government to account. However, it is clear that, before the leviathan gets completely out of control, reforms are necessary so that victims can get the truth that they deserve.
::I call Martin Whitfield. You have a generous five minutes, Mr Whitfield.
14:54
::On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate in support of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s excellent report. I thank the committee and all those who contributed to the inquiry.
It is right that we begin where this Parliament always begins—with the people who sit at the heart of such inquiries. Public inquiries matter because they give victims, families and communities a voice when the system has failed them. As I mentioned in my intervention, public inquiries are potentially on the cusp of losing the confidence of communities because, at the moment, many individuals see them as a last resort for getting an answer when a system appears to have closed its doors to them.
::Martin Whitfield knows that I entirely agree with that point. Does he feel, as I do, that, because the Government and other agencies, such as—this was true in the case that I described—health boards, have dragged their feet, that problem has been exacerbated, as it has meant that we have not been able to get the answers in the timescales that were promised?
::I absolutely agree. Wearing a different hat, I heard the Scottish Information Commissioner give evidence this morning, in which he talked about the need for people to come to him just to get an answer to their problem. They come to him not in the interests of freedom of information or to find out about the process; they simply want to get, for example, a planning certificate, but they have been unable to do so. They see the whole system as being closed against them, and the situation becomes increasingly infuriating. That leads to what we have all witnessed—a growth in the anger that people feel when they cannot get answers.
Showing victims respect demands that inquiries are effective, timely and credible. It demands—as we have already heard—that lessons are learned before the harm is repeated. It demands that public money, which could otherwise be spent on health, policing or local services, is used responsibly.
::Martin Whitfield says that inquiries must allow solutions to be found—I am paraphrasing—before the harms are repeated, but does he recognise that some inquiries have taken years and years, and that, as a result, by the time they have come to their conclusions, events have moved on and the situation has changed significantly? How does he propose that we address that point?
::That was a valuable intervention. As we have heard, some inquiries have taken upwards of a decade to solve a problem that would, one would have hoped, already have been solved. However, I suggest that particularly lengthy inquiries talk to the existence of a culture that may not have changed. That culture tends to be one of silence and one in which evidence has gone missing. We all hope that that culture will have changed since the events that occasioned the inquiry, but experience tells us that, unfortunately, in many cases, it will not have done. That brings us back to the confidence that the public have in the Government and the Parliament in that respect, which is being seriously questioned.
::Does the member agree that inquiries all have very different purposes? The Covid inquiry has a very different purpose from the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which is seeking to deliver justice, and the Eljamel inquiry.
::I thank the Deputy First Minister for that intervention, because it goes to the crux of why we find ourselves here today. In its report, the committee made the very strong suggestion that careful consideration be given to what an inquiry is for. We have had inquiries that have developed as the leader of the inquiry has followed the evidence down various paths. There have also been some highly successful inquiries that have had the tight remit of trying to get to the facts of a specific problem or responsibility. Such inquiries are incredibly valuable, not just for the individuals who have been victims of the situations that led to those inquiries, but for the learning experience that Michelle Thomson talked about in relation to how we can improve things. Such inquiries tell us what to look for when things are going wrong.
::I fully accept that there are many different types of inquiries and that, therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. For example, a death in police custody is very different from a public procurement exercise that has gone wrong. However, one thing that should be common to them all is that the inquiry’s recommendations are implemented. Where does the member think that we should go in creating a statutory legal framework for the implementation of statutory inquiry recommendations?
::Craig Hoy’s intervention speaks to the committee’s recognition that we cannot design one inquiry for everything, but we can set in place blueprints—a shared or centralised resource—to feed out the responsibility for setting the costs and inquiry definitions early on, and sticking to them.
On the application of inquiry considerations and thoughts, it is dangerous for a Government, Parliament or society to ignore recommendations—that point will allow me to drift back into my speech. They do so at their peril, because huge investments in time and emotional commitment are made to inquiries. It is universal across inquiries that the recommendations that they make come from the evidence that they have heard. They are evidence led, and the recommendations are strong suggestions about how to avoid or prevent a repetition of the problem.
I am desperately conscious of the time. I had many fascinating and interesting things to say, but I want to pick up on one point that I hope the Deputy First Minister will return to, which is about addressing conflict of interest. That is a prescient part of the committee’s report, to which the Government’s response was basically to fall back on existing codes and responsibilities. I accept that codes matter, but there is a chance to strengthen confidence through clear and comprehensive guidance. If the Government is to seek to rely on the codes but the codes have already been questioned, simply restating the status quo is not good enough, and it is an opportunity. I echo the committee’s calls for much more guidance, particularly on funding, terms of reference and conflicts of interest.
I once again thank the committee for a genuinely excellent piece of work that we should recognise the value of encompassing as we go forward, because that would help a great deal to renew confidence in the organisations and systems that act for the public, and to do so in the right way.
::We now come to the open debate. We still have a fair amount of time in hand, and I call Michelle Thomson, who has around four minutes.
15:02
::I wanted to begin my remarks, but my laptop has just flipped to show something else entirely. Please give me a second, Presiding Officer.
::Will the member take an intervention?
::I would be very happy to do so.
::I refer back to the member’s intervention on me about the length of public inquiries and the learning opportunities that go by the wayside. Does she agree that the use of interim reports, as we have seen in a number of significant inquiries—
::Will the member take an intervention?
::I am not sure that I can take an intervention in an intervention. Does Michelle Thomson feel that one of the roles of interim reporting may be to assist with learning?
::Absolutely, and I thank Mr Whitfield for his kind intervention. I am not going to touch my laptop, because it has gone into what I would describe as a technical fankle. I am just going to play it safe.
I start by noting how valuable I considered the inquiry to be. Indeed, I contend that it was one of the most valuable inquiries in this parliamentary session. Its incredible importance is backed up by the number of members who are in the chamber today, because it talks to who we are as an institution.
We have already had some excellent comments about the need for inquiries to occur in the public realm and how we choose to deal with them. I will go on to make comments about the cost-effectiveness of public inquiries, which is the title of the debate, and we have heard some interesting reflections on how important they are to our public realm. It is a dry topic for some, but certainly not for me.
My first comment is that we set out clearly the scope of our inquiry and said that we would not comment on the relative merits of individual public inquiries. That seemed to be misunderstood and I felt that there were, at times, attempts to deflect legitimate parliamentary criticism. We cannot accept that. We had a job to do and I believe that we fulfilled it in good faith.
My next comment is about conflicts of interest. I strongly agree with the comment that it cannot be good enough just to refer to the ministerial code and to say that ministers should follow that when we have clear evidence that the code has been breached. Something more must be done, because, if nothing is done, it is a zero-sum game for us all.
::I was going to make this point at the end, but in response to Martin Whitfield and Michelle Thomson, I will say that we will come back to the committee before the pre-election period to indicate how we will strengthen that.
::It is heartening to hear that, with regard to not only conflicts of interest but our additional comment about declaring personal or professional relationships. That is utterly fundamental because it speaks to the issue of trust, which was a recurring theme throughout the inquiry.
Our point about transparency is related to that. Recommendation 82 says that
“statements to Parliament announcing the setting up of a public inquiry should fully explain Ministers’ decisions and the reasoning for launching a public inquiry”
but I did not feel that we got to that point yesterday, although my colleague John Mason asked some questions about it. We absolutely need to see that explanation and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will not mind my expressing disappointment that, in the face of our report, that did not happen yesterday, when doing so would have shown rapid change.
I do not know how much time I have left.
::My generosity is not yet close to being exhausted.
::There we go. Let the excitement commence!
We also talked a lot about budgets. I consider it to be absolutely fair that budget lines are phased and are signed off throughout a public inquiry. However, during our inquiry, several of us commented on the fact that there is no other area of public life where there seem to be unlimited budgets and no cost control. That is absolutely outrageous. I am sympathetic to what lawyers say about following the evidence, and it is correct to do that, but it seems to me that we have thrown up our hands and said that it is too difficult and that we do not want to upset some lawyers by introducing controls. There is no other walk of life where we would accept that. Budgets are utterly fundamental and I have been heartened by what the Deputy First Minister said.
We must also be able to publish costs. Let us be clear: some law firms have made millions and millions of pounds from the public purse and we do not know about that. That cannot be acceptable. In recommendation 223,
“we ask that public inquiries record and publish costs in a consistent manner”
and that those costs are itemised.
I am sorry for not having expended your generosity, Presiding Officer, as I now come to my final comment. The point is important because I am aware that the Deputy First Minister will not be in her current role after this session—indeed nor will I, nor Liz Smith, while the future for many other members remains to be seen. Recommendation 278
“asks the Parliament to consider adding oversight of public inquiries to an existing parliamentary committee’s remit”.
I consider that to be important. My personal judgment is that adding the public administration remit to that of the finance committee has been a great success and should continue. The cost-effectiveness of public inquiries, along with their transparency and governance, are vital, so I consider it imperative that that should happen.
15:09
::I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its report. The speeches that we have heard so far have been valuable and a credit to the Parliament. I am glad to contribute to this debate, which builds on the groundbreaking report that the committee published last year. I think that this is the first time that Holyrood has delved deeply into the issue, but it is appropriate that we have done so to ensure that justice and accountability do not come at an unsustainable cost to the Scottish taxpayer. There is obviously a balance to be struck in securing justice, and that is the key thing for me.
I affirm the vital role of public inquiries, which are not luxuries but essential tools for uncovering the truth, delivering justice to victims and preventing future tragedies. I note the issue of trust in public inquiries and what they deliver, which Liz Smith mentioned. The Penrose inquiry into contaminated blood exposed systemic failures and brought closure to affected families. The on-going Scottish child abuse inquiry is giving voice to survivors after decades of silence. The Sheku Bayoh inquiry is seeking answers for a grieving family and communities. As the Deputy First Minister said, the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry is helping us to learn lessons from a pandemic that touched every life in Scotland.
Such inquiries can restore public confidence, and we should not underestimate the importance of that. When we consider our political discourse and the extent to which people trust politicians more generally, we can see that the role of public inquiries is incredibly important. They can also promote reconciliation and drive real change. Without them, we would risk repeating history’s mistakes.
However, we must be honest that public inquiries come at a staggering cost. Since 2007, Scotland has spent about £230 million on public inquiries, adjusted to today’s prices. The Edinburgh tram inquiry alone cost £13.1 million and took nine years. I know people who were involved in that inquiry and they were incredibly frustrated about how long it took.
The cost of the four major current inquiries—the Scottish child abuse inquiry, the hospitals inquiry, the Sheku Bayoh inquiry and the Covid-19 inquiry—has already reached £200 million, with more costs to come. As Michelle Thomson said, legal fees often dominate, sometimes accounting for more than a third of the costs, while indirect costs to public bodies such as Police Scotland add millions more. That can sometimes mean funds being diverted from front-line services, which is why the points that Michelle Thomson and the Deputy First Minister made about the publication of costs are incredibly important. That is not to say that companies are overemphasising the costs, but it is important that they are transparent.
::Does Paul McLennan agree that the Deputy First Minister was right to point to certain elements of the costs that are sensitive? Does he also agree that the costs of advocates who represent groups and individuals cannot fall into that category and that the public have a right to know what the advocacy costs are?
::I agree with Martin Whitfield on that. I note that the committee raises that point, too.
The figures are not abstract; they are equivalent to the annual budget of a small local authority or to the cost of the regional growth deals for a year. At a time of tight finances, we owe it to Scots to ask whether we are getting value for money. The Inquiries Act 2005 urges chairs
“to avoid any unnecessary cost”
but, without mandated budgets or timescales, overruns are inevitable.
One of the key points for me is that effectiveness is hard to measure. Recommendations are only as good as their implementation, yet there is no standard monitoring. There is a risk of sermonising without taking action. Trust in actions is key, and that is why the committee’s recommendations are so important. They call on the Scottish ministers to set defined timescales and fixed budgets for every inquiry from the outset. The Deputy First Minister talked about that as well. However, there will have to be some flexibility on that, because every inquiry is slightly different, so we cannot force timescales. Some inquiries will take as long as they take.
There are a couple of options that we can look at. We could amend the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 to make the proposals mandatory, with any extensions having to be justified before Parliament. Alternatively, we could collaborate with the UK Government in the longer term to embed the proposals in the 2005 act. It is about boosting transparency in decision making, supporting inquiry teams better and strengthening oversight, perhaps through the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
The Deputy First Minister has engaged with the committee and she mentioned coming back before to the Parliament on the matter before dissolution. It is about emphasising fiscal sustainability alongside justice. Alternatives such as non-statutory reviews can be quicker and cheaper for suitable cases, but where statutory powers are needed, let us make them efficient.
Public inquiries must deliver truth without bankrupting trust in our institutions. By adopting the proposed reforms, we can balance accountability with prudence and ensure that every single pound that is spent serves the people of Scotland. I urge members to support the motion and drive this change forward.
15:14
::I am keen to speak in today’s debate because I feel strongly that something is far wrong with the present public inquiries system.
As I have said, I agree with other speakers that public inquiries might be necessary at times. However, the committee got the impression that sometimes the facts of a case, what went wrong and why are all well known. Therefore, there is little need for a public inquiry, but because the victims or their families want to pursue things further and are looking for heads to roll, they push for a public inquiry, so politicians—both Government and Opposition—consider it easier to give in rather than refuse the request.
::I thank the member for taking an intervention. He knows that I agree with some of the comments that he has made, but does he accept that, sometimes, when we are genuinely trying to get to the truth we cannot, because we keep getting told, “We cannot answer that question”, and the inquiry goes round in circles for a long time, which delays the process?
::There is a problem on both sides. On the one hand, there is a lack of transparency and openness, and we need to improve on that across the board. On the other hand, the committee met in private session with some of the victims who have pushed for public inquiries, and I am afraid that I came to the conclusion that nothing would have satisfied some of them. That does not apply in every case, but certainly in a few cases, it does not matter what happens—people will not be satisfied. I do not think that a public inquiry adds very much in a case of that sort.
There seems to be an increase in demand for public inquiries in recent years, as Liz Smith and others have said. Some colleagues have suggested that that is because more things are going wrong these days. However, I suggest that it is perhaps also because people are less willing to accept that human beings make mistakes and more ready to challenge the authorities than they used to be, and there is an increased desire to find somebody to blame.
We all know that the Scottish Government, local authorities, health boards and the rest of the public sector are tight for money.
::It is very kind of the member to take an intervention. He has moved on slightly, but to go back to his previous point, does he also consider that there is a risk that campaign lawyers could stumble on the fact that a public inquiry is a potential good revenue generator and use it for that purpose? Does he consider the possibility that some campaign lawyers might choose to use that as a mechanism because it gives them a clear line of sight to funds?
::It is a combination of things. There has to be some kind of case to start with, and then the lawyers jump on board. We all know phrases such as “ambulance chasers”, but just because I am an accountant does not mean that I am totally against lawyers.
We know that the Scottish Government, local authorities, health boards and the rest of the public sector are tight for money, so we have to keep tight control of costs across the sector, and that includes the costs of public inquiries.
As others have said, when it comes to public inquiries, what do we get? We get no timescales and, in effect, no cost control. Who else operates like that? The Deputy First Minister and I have experience of being auditors. Auditors have to complete complex audits of organisations such as banks within a very limited number of days of the year end. Cleaners have to get their work done in a certain amount of time. Normally in the Parliament—although perhaps not today—we have very tight time limits on our speeches. Public inquiries can go on for as long as they want and run up almost any cost that they want—all because, allegedly, they must be independent. Inquiries should be independent, but lots of people are independent and still work to fixed budgets and tight timescales. The Auditor General does that, and as does His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, to mention only a couple of examples.
Here are examples of costs from recent or current inquiries: £45 million for the Covid inquiry, £26 million for the Sheku Bayoh inquiry and £102 million for the child abuse inquiry. Those are not even the full costs, because police time is added on.
As has already been mentioned, the Edinburgh trams inquiry took more nine years. What use is that if we are trying to learn lessons? If I remember correctly, the second line went ahead before the inquiry had even finished.
We also need to remember that the Scottish Government has a relatively fixed budget, so £50 million on an inquiry is £50 million less for front-line services such as nurses, social workers or the police. However, when I suggested to Lord Hardie that we might have a public inquiry with the remit of doing the best that it could in 24 months, he was clearly horrified and said that he just would not do it.
For once, there has been a glimmer of light coming from the direction of Westminster. As the convener said, Westminster is going ahead with a public inquiry on group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation—please let us not use the term “grooming gangs”—and it has been given a time limit of three years and an indicative budget of £65 million. That is a good precedent for setting up an inquiry with a defined budget and timescale. That is the committee’s key recommendation, in my opinion.
Another angle is whether there could be a halfway house between an all-singing, all-dancing, gold-plated, judge-led public inquiry on the one hand and nothing at all on the other. We heard that other countries, such as Sweden, are able to conduct similar types of inquiries but do them much more quickly and cheaply, and it seems that they also have broad public acceptance, which is, presumably, one of our aims.
The committee also heard that there is a knock-on effect on the judicial system if the chair is a senior judge. We have only 36 senior judges in Scotland and every time we appoint one as chair of an inquiry, we slow down the whole judicial system. Therefore, we need to consider expert chairs or panels, in appropriate circumstances. The Government broadly agrees, which is welcome.
In conclusion, this is one of the most worthwhile pieces of work that the committee has carried out, and I trust that future public inquiries will take less time and cost less money.
::We turn to closing speeches. Rhoda Grant will close on behalf of Scottish Labour. Ms Grant is joining us remotely and has up to four minutes.
15:21
::I thank the committee for carrying out its inquiry. Public inquiries are necessary, and especially so when someone is harmed by a public body, either directly or by omission. Demand for inquiries is increasing, because of a lack of trust in public bodies. That point was made by Liz Smith, who quoted John Sturrock KC, but I would suggest that it may also be due to a lack of candour on the part of public bodies. All MSPs will have had casework in which someone cannot gain closure, simply because they are not being told what happened or whether there were mistakes, or, if there were mistakes, receiving a meaningful apology. If that was provided, many calls for public inquiries might not be so great. If people knew what happened to their loved ones, they might be satisfied. For the most part, that is all that people want to hear, but it does not happen. As Martin Whitfield said, public inquiries give families and communities the answers that they need.
The committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has not accepted all its recommendations, although the Deputy First Minister seemed to hint that this is not the Government’s last word on the issue. I hope that the Government will consider the other recommendations and see where improvements can be made. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that public inquiries are there to serve the people we represent.
The committee talked about receiving more timely responses from the Government to the findings of public inquiries. That is necessary. Even when it is a long and complex public inquiry, surely the Government could provide interim responses to the issues, while taking more time to address the more complex issues that have been highlighted by the recommendations of the inquiry.
Other members talked about having a clear remit for public inquiries—the Government appears to concede that. I would suggest that that clear remit needs to be devised alongside those who have been impacted and seek answers, so that they have confidence in the process. It would also allow the inquiry to come back to the Government to expand the remit, if the inquiry feels that that is necessary, for example if the evidence takes it into a previously unforeseen area.
Many members talked about the costs of public inquiries. It seems to me that if we had uncovered other options—for instance a duty of candour—that would have been better than standing the cost to the public purse.
The length of time taken by public inquiries delays people getting closure, because they are waiting for answers. One of the speakers—I think that it was John Mason—talked about feeling that nobody would have ever accepted the answers that they were given, but that is because of the time that is taken. If you have not been given a timely response, sometimes you cannot get over that, and you are stuck. That is why a duty of candour would do much to meet the needs of people who are seeking answers.
Martin Whitfield said that having timely answers and faster responses from public inquiries would mean that those answers would be put in place and mistakes would not recur. He also talked about the culture of secrecy that often runs through the necessity of having those inquiries and about people having to fight to get to the truth of the matter. I think that that has been lost in this debate, because some people have to really push for inquiries because they need answers for closure.
One of the issues that is in the report but has not been touched on today is the delay in giving people a right to reply if they are identified in an inquiry as having been in some way culpable or if they attract criticism from the inquiry. I agree that that can be used to slow the process down, especially when people do not want to hear the outcome of the inquiry, but they still need a right to reply, albeit they would need to have a time constraint on how long it would take them to do that.
Many people spoke about budgets and mentioned huge amounts of money. I would welcome constraints to the budget, but again with the caveat that, if the inquiry needed to go in an unforeseen direction, it could come back and expand that budget.
::Ms Grant, will you please conclude?
::I will conclude.
I will finish by thanking the committee for its report on public inquiries and reminding us all that we must have cognisance of the people who need those inquiries to hear what happened to themselves or their loved ones so that they can get closure. That must remain at the heart of our deliberations.
15:27
::I will let the convener into a secret: when I heard that the Finance and Public Administration Committee was going to hold an inquiry into public inquiries, I was mildly disheartened, because the cynic in me questioned the need for doing so. I am reminded of a quote from Sir Humphrey Appleby, who said:
“Minister, two basic rules of government: never look into anything you do not have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.”
So, I questioned, off the back of a House of Lords inquiry into public inquiries, whether that would be the best use of the committee’s time. However, my cynicism was not well placed, because the report is very strong and the nine months were very well utilised to get to the heart of an issue of public administration that has perhaps been overlooked for too long.
I hope that the cabinet secretary—we have heard further concessions today—as well as those outside Parliament, the broader Government machine, campaign groups and the legal fraternity take seriously the committee’s recommendations. As a former journalist, I believe that public inquiries have their place, as do royal commissions, although I note that, for some reason, royal commissions—perhaps Sir Humphrey Appleby had some influence on this—which were a creature of the 1970s and early 1980s, seem to have gone out of fashion.
This is the opportunity and the time to look back and forward and assess whether the one-size-fits-all judicial model is effective and fit for purpose in modern Scotland. I believe that the committee’s report has identified many of the critical issues that need to be addressed so that, in future, public inquiries are efficient for the Government and the public purse and maintain the trust that they presently enjoy. I believe that they are presently the gold standard and the go-to when there is a disaster, scandal or public procurement problem.
We need to address three areas in future, and I hope that the Government will look at them. The budget for public inquiries needs to be fixed. Terms of reference can change over time, but I think that the Parliament and the Government must have a say if that happens, because otherwise we see the mission creep that other members have identified.
The committee had some concerns about the role of lawyers in directing the length and scope of inquiries. Over the course of recent months, I have put my views on that on the public record in the media, even though not all lawyers welcome my position. By common consent, I think that we need to look at the scope of inquires and the length of time that they can take.
I do not often argue for new bodies or quangos to be created, but I think that there is a compelling case for a centralised unit and, possibly, centralised accommodation to house inquiry secretariats. None of us can forget the image of Lord Hardie crawling around on the floor and installing new duct tape so that he could get an internet connection before the trams inquiry could commence its deliberations. I believe that that needs to be assessed in the interests of the public purse.
The committee was clear that there needs to be some form of sunset clause so that the public, and families in particular, who, in many cases, are going through a period of trauma, know how long they will have to wait in order to get answers.
::We have talked about the role of the judiciary. However, criminal and civil trials stick very well to set times. The skill of knowing how long something should take does not elude the experts in the field.
::I do not think that we would let defence or prosecuting lawyers dictate the pace of a trial. Judges would come down on them rather quickly if they sensed that there was any attempt to do so.
Ultimately, it is about ensuring that those who call for a public inquiry have trust in the recommendations as well as in the Government or any other bodies to implement the recommendations. My fear is that, if we focus too much on the process and not on what happens after an inquiry has reported, we will end up improving the process, efficiency and operation of inquiries but leaving it to the Government of the day to act on the recommendations. I hate to say it, and I go back to Sir Humphrey Appleby, but there is still a desire for Government ministers to get problems off their desk and hope that they stay off their desk for as long as possible, or at least until after the next election or when they leave office.
I close with an appeal for all those who the report touches to take its recommendations seriously, for the Government to implement the recommendations expeditiously, whichever party is in post after the election, and for future Governments and other bodies to implement the recommendations from public inquiries. Only then will public confidence be enjoyed and trust maintained.
15:32
::In relation to the opening comments about the breadth and scale of the Government’s response, I reiterate that, although members might be disappointed that we were perhaps not more forthright, anyone who reads our response will see that we are positive about most of the committee’s recommendations. Sometimes, the need to respond quickly means that further work needs to be done after the response is provided, but I think that there are routes to implementing all the committee’s recommendations.
I am struck that the committee’s inquiry and this debate have taken place during a period in which members have been active in calling for another public inquiry. It is easier to talk about the general principles of inquiries than it is to directly allow those points to shape the Parliament’s asks and the Government’s responses.
On the points that have been made about budgets and timescales, it is worth reiterating that, when we provided a clear steer on the timescales in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry, for example, we were still confronted with a choice to make. Clearly, that inquiry had to last longer than the initial four years, and the Government had to decide whether to accept or reject that. John Swinney accepted that and said that the inquiry should report as soon as is reasonably practical.
::The Deputy First Minister made the point that people in the Parliament were calling for an inquiry. However, the same thing happened with commissioners—people in the Parliament on all sides were calling for commissioners, but the Parliament then decided that that was not a good idea.
::I am not going to get drawn into a conversation on that subject, much as I would very much like to, because it will inevitably be taken as a comment on the most recent public inquiry that has been announced. A lot could be said about that process, and I would love to comment, but I will not.
The point here is that, taking into account survivors’ views, their confidence and the appetite of politicians for another public inquiry, it is easier to say that such an inquiry should not take place than it is, in the moment, to respond in the way that we are all hypothetically asking for in this debate.
::I think that there is an element of frustration among people who seek public inquiries not about the budget but about the timescale. A lot of people who are looking for public inquiries, given the answers that they seek, do not realise just how long they are likely to take. That leads to frustration, because they want inquiries to be concluded much more expeditiously than appears to be the case.
::I understand that.
In the three minutes that I have left, I will rapidly go through the recommendations in the report and the calls that have been made in the debate.
On the recommendation that the Scottish Government should reflect the core purpose, the scope and the limitations of public inquiries, I agree. We have said that we appreciate the point. We will need to give a little thought to precisely how we will do that, and we will come back to members on that. The live public inquiry that has just been announced will enable us to give effect to that approach.
On the call for the development of guidance to provide a clear framework for decision making and to bring much-needed transparency and consistency to the process, again, I agree.
On the call for there to be a clear requirement for a statutory public inquiry to be considered only when all alternatives have been exhausted, there is a strong, firm yes from the Government on that.
On the point about reporting all aspects of potential conflicts of interest, I have given a commitment to Michelle Thomson that we will look at how we strengthen that process. It goes without saying that all ministers are personally responsible for ensuring that no conflict arises or could be perceived to arise. We can strengthen the guidance and the process in that regard, and we will look at doing that. However, ultimately, it is the responsibility of each of us to know in our hearts not just when there is a conflict of interest but when there might be the perception of a conflict of interest, and to make sure that that is acknowledged straight away.
On the need to strengthen the guidance to ensure that all options for chairs are considered, as I said to the committee, we are 100 per cent open to the appointment of inquiry chairs who are not serving members of the judiciary. Having engaged with the Lord President on that matter, I acknowledge that that is a shared position across the board, because of the impact on judicial resources.
On the call for the Scottish Government to align its guidance and terms of reference more closely to a public inquiry’s core purpose, we will look at what further we can do in that regard.
The call to ensure that the Scottish Government sets a defined timescale based on an inquiry’s core purpose has come through loud and clear. There is precedent for that, but I also agree with the point that was made about having the option to extend the timescale that has been set out if the need arises. Having a timescale that is too concrete is a problem if, for example, in the process of inquiry, the chair discovers that it is absolutely important that the timescale be extended. I do not think that we can be closed off to that point.
I acknowledge the time, Presiding Officer.
On the need for defined budgets and timescales, I noted the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 in relation to ministers’ powers to make rules. We can certainly consider whether further rules regarding procedural timescales are required.
It would be possible to make provision by primary legislation in respect of budgets for public inquiries relating to devolved matters. We obviously do not have time in the next five weeks for such legislation—it would be for a future Administration—but we can certainly commit to doing some of the work that is required in the pre-election period.
I am now clean out of time, but I state that there is a spirit of willingness on the part of the Government to implement the committee’s recommendations and to provide further information in advance of the election.
::I call Michael Marra to close the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
15:39
::I am pleased to do so. I declare an interest as a witness to the Eljamel public inquiry, in common with my colleague Liz Smith. I pay tribute to the FPA Committee clerks, who are outstanding, and to my colleagues on the committee for all their contributions to the inquiry and the work that we have done over recent years. I pay particular tribute to our convener, who has led the committee in exemplary fashion during my time on the committee. I cannot comment on his behaviour before that.
The question of why so many inquiries are taking place was perhaps not covered by our inquiry’s terms of reference, but it became a key consideration in the way in which all members addressed the issue. It is a question that should animate the Government, hence my intervention on the Deputy First Minister in her opening speech, because it is about the performance and culture of the Government and, frankly, trust in our democracy, which is a very profound question at the moment.
In relation to the balance of considerations that the Deputy First Minister pointed to in her thoughtful closing speech, the tension between the Government and the Parliament in making the decision on whether to have an inquiry is a core issue. Without an inquiry, people are denied justice and access to information and transparency, and parliamentarians can ask whether the Government is satisfied and can stand in front of the people and make that justification. Frankly, I think that we came to the correct conclusions in that regard.
::One of the recommendations was for a future parliamentary committee to take a particular responsibility for inquiries. Obviously, that would be a decision for the Parliament. What does Michael Marra think about that recommendation for the next parliamentary session?
::I think that it is a very strong and important recommendation. It is correct for the Parliament, as one of the core organisations that will have made demands that the Government will have responded to, to have oversight of the process, but that flows from the other recommendations about ensuring better control of time, remit and costs. The Deputy First Minister and I had an exchange on that, and the question of responsibility between the Government and the Parliament is absolutely clear.
In the debate, issues of transparency have come to the fore. Michelle Thomson touched on issues related to people making declarations, and we would all welcome the Deputy First Minister’s response in that regard.
We need a full explanation of why the Government has taken the decision to grant a public inquiry. I echo Michelle Thomson’s comments. I do not think that, in the most recent announcement yesterday, we had the fullest explanation that we could have had. That is critical to the setting of the terms of reference and the remit that flows from the parliamentary process and the Government’s decision, but it also relates to issues of transparency and a declaration of why we might have got to that position in the first place. That is critical.
It is also critical that we understand why an inquiry is needed, because they are not cost free. We have talked about the cash cost to the public purse and taxpayers as a result of an inquiry. However, the impact on the judicial system, which came through loud and clear in our inquiry, is really important and was, frankly, unknown to me prior to our inquiry. It is a really significant issue at a time of particular challenge for our justice system. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is nodding, because she knows those issues acutely.
I am very conscious of the issues pertaining to public service delivery and the amount of pressure that public inquiries put on public services. One of the key considerations relating to the Eljamel inquiry, which I mentioned, is the pressure that it puts on NHS Tayside, which gives care to the people whom I represent. When considering those issues, we are displacing resource, time, management and strategy. I am a strong supporter of that inquiry, but we must recognise the trade-offs in that regard.
Liz Smith, Rhoda Grant, John Mason and Paul McLennan touched on the frequency with which we hold public inquiries, but there are also the issues of urgency, which Martin Whitfield covered. As he said, there is a demand for remedy before the harm is repeated. I have concerns that we are not seeing that urgency.
Covid inquiries provided one of the most striking comparisons. The Covid inquiry in Australia was completed within a matter of months after the end of the pandemic. Here we are, in Scotland, years on, still awaiting the final modules and recommendations, when we know that another pandemic could happen at any time.
The issues must be dealt with timeously, including for the victims. Victims die as a result of the actions that we are investigating. Again, I think about issues that pertain to the hospital inquiry, which we have talked about at length in the Parliament, and rightly so, and to the Eljamel inquiry.
I will use my remaining few seconds to touch on the speech that the clerks prepared for me. The committee considers it essential for transparency and accountability that the relevant public bodies respond promptly to public inquiries, and there is a question of timeframes in that regard.
We also recommended the establishment of a central public inquiries unit. I would like to see, perhaps in correspondence to the committee, a more in-depth response to that recommendation, because there is a glaring inefficiency in the process. Lord Hardie—a former Lord Advocate—trying to get an internet connection feels like one of the most inefficient and ridiculous uses possible of public inquiry time. There should be a standard operating procedure that can be followed so that we can get things moving and so that people can receive the justice that they are hungry for. The committee heard that message loudly and clearly across those nine months.
::That concludes the debate on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time