Chamber and committees

Do you have anything to add, Dr Ireton?

I want to ask a tiny question to help build my knowledge. I have read the criteria that determine who a core participant will be, but do such participants pick their own lawyers or do they have one allocated to them if the inquiry gets extended or something else happens, as when, for example, the Scottish Covid inquiry was linked with the UK one? How does the approach with lawyers work?

Is it the same for you, Laura?

It is useful to know that the question of querying the costs for lawyers who represent core participants does not apply to you. Obviously, I am in no way inferring anything by asking the question, but the fact that costs, even if they were detailed, were not subsequently queried could suggest a throwaway acceptance of “Yes, that’s fine.” I am trying to get a sense of how actively the costs are monitored, in comparison with an implicit process—as part of the culture of how inquiries operate—of, “Well, an eminent KC submitting this, so of course it’s right. It’s all detailed and that’s good enough for us.” Would it be fair to say that costs from eminent KCs are usually accepted because that is the culture?

Michael Clancy, in your submission, you said that

“inquiries are not-for-profit bodies.”

Can you explain what you mean by that? I take it that you mean that it is in their nature that they are not for profit, because it is clear that a lot of money flows through them.

I will interrupt you there. I just wanted to check that point about inquiries being not for profit because, clearly, quite a lot of profit is being made.

With the earlier panel—I know that Richard Pugh joined us later during that—we discussed the general theme of inquiries being seen as, in effect, a type of project that have different pathways through them. There could be properly scoped terms of reference, with an indication of a budget—even if that was then subject to change control, as would be normal—and with reporting. Potentially, there could be the equivalent of a project management office.

To what extent is that feasible? Does any of you accord with the view that that route would not be effective only in the case of public inquiries? That approach is not perfect in businesses or in any other public sector piece of work.

We heard from the earlier panel that there might be a type of toolkit, in which some things would be suitable and some would not, but that, as things stand at the moment, there is no central collection of lessons learned. Those lessons could include a pathway, based on previous inquiries, that would support chairs who, although they are extremely experienced judges, are not experienced in budgetary control or in managing large projects. That could assist chairs in determining a possible pathway, subject to various significant uncertainties and complexities.

I want to go back to where we started. If you do not mind my saying so, Lord Hardie, I had a little titter to myself when you made the quite reasonable point that nobody knows the scope of such a piece of work. You might have a better recollection than I do, but I distinctly remember the people undertaking the tram inquiry saying, “Frankly, we didn’t know how much uncertainty and complexity there was once they started digging underground.”

That speaks to the need for a proper, comprehensive approach. Although “project” is not quite the right terminology, because it is business focused, inquiries are projects in that they have a defined start and end, as well as all the other things that we have talked about: terms of reference, scope, purpose and budget. Last week, when Professor Cameron was in front of the committee, I asked him whether there was

“any other arena that you have dealt with, in the course of your career, where there is no cost control whatsoever although millions of pounds are involved; where the terms of reference do not ordinarily contain a budget; where there are no stage gates or phasing of the inquiry; and where there is no active monitoring? Have you ever come across that in any other walk of life in your career?”

He said:

“No, I have not.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 20 May 2025; c 41.]

Are we getting a bit confused by what I fully accept is the uncertainty and complexity? Public inquiries are, in and of themselves, the only project in any public sector or private business work that would not adopt a project methodology. Perhaps the question is better for you, Dr Ireton. Are there compelling reasons why we do not put some proper methodology in place?

I want to explore the potential for conflict of interest a wee bit. Last week, I brought that up with Professor Cameron, who made it clear that the potential for such conflicts was actively considered. Today, we have had several examples of that: I declared an interest, as did my colleague Liz Smith.

We have, however, seen the example of a solicitor who takes on or prospects for a very high-profile case and then actively advocates for—and lobbies their best friend for—a public inquiry. In that particular instance, the best friend happened to be the justice secretary in the Scottish Government. A public inquiry was then confirmed. This may be a question for you, Lord Hardie. Surely, in such instances, there must at least be the potential for a significant and disclosable conflict of interests. Is that a usual approach? Have you have seen such a conflict of interest? We have a small network of relationships in Scotland and that is certainly a consideration in Jersey, which is smaller again. Would you actively consider that or hope that it would be considered?

A question that would often be asked in such a case is who would benefit from any course of action. An example that I gave involved someone calling for an increase in the scope of a public inquiry while, at the same time, representing the core participants and therefore potentially being a significant beneficiary. As you say, that can often simply be about perception. We know that the chair can choose to take action, but are you aware of any formalised process that allows those questions to be asked?