Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 23 September 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1734 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

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?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

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?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

That is the point that I am getting at. There could be a situation in which the chair would determine which lawyer would represent the core participants. I have already pointed out that who becomes a core participant is subject to criteria, but I think that you have confirmed the issue for me.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

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?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 27 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Grangemouth’s Industrial Future

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

I am keen to let my colleagues come in. I know that we only have you for an hour, so this is my final question.

What commitment can you give today about the Acorn carbon capture and storage project? There has been some extensive pre-trailing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going cold on Acorn specifically but continuing to proceed with Teeside and Humberside. Can you give us any update or commitment on the Acorn project?

09:15  

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Grangemouth’s Industrial Future

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

Okay.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Grangemouth’s Industrial Future

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

You are the accountable—

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Grangemouth’s Industrial Future

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Michelle Thomson

At a recent meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Ineos was unable to signal its intention to invest in project willow, despite being invited to do so. You are correct about the scale of the projects under project willow not yet being on the table, but the problem is that they will not come unless there is regulatory certainty and investment certainty. The regulatory certainty will come from the UK Government, and Ineos clearly has a role, because it owns the land. I ask you for your reflections on that.