Chamber and committees

You have touched on a potentially massive area—the split between what you might do and the lending to SMEs that regular commercial banks do, where there are and continue to be fairly critical issues, because that is not a contract of equals. In 2008, we saw a lot of issues when people’s loans were called in even though they were being utterly fulfilled, because there is a contract of unequals.

It sounds as if there is a huge amount of work still to do. Last week, I asked how much has been done to look at the issue from the other side. We have a framework in the bill that the committee is broadly in favour of—we could do some good stuff. From the other side, what can we do to enable that good stuff to be done by actively focusing on financial mechanisms? How much talk, how much appetite and how much emphasis are there on that question in your community? How actively is it being discussed?

Without putting words in your mouth, it sounds as if there is early-doors thinking across the piece.

What would be the lever?

Mr Campbell, you mentioned the interface with Government, and you both had terms of reference set for your work. In our evidence session last week, we heard from the Scottish Police Federation that, despite it making clear its concerns about the opportunity costs, which the convener outlined, the dialogue was very limited once things were set in train.

I appreciate the tension in the situation. However, if a cabinet secretary has triggered an inquiry, they must surely have an on-going interest in its implications, even if they cannot get involved or be seen to be involved, for very good reasons that I understand. What would you expect a cabinet secretary who has instructed that an inquiry be undertaken to do during it? Would you expect interest from them during the inquiry or only once it has been completed? As the chair of an inquiry, would you expect them to tell you what you have to do and then go away and only come back years later?

Good morning to both Johns. Thank you for joining us. Continuing on similar themes, I suspect, I want to explore a little more the culture of the legal fraternity in such inquiries. Of course, one makes the assumption that all lawyers operate from complete integrity and ethics. That is one view: that they provide good works. The other view, potentially, is that inquiries are a racket whereby certain law firms and lawyers have found a very good way of making money. Particularly if they build up a reputation, they can roll from public inquiry to public inquiry. I know that that sounds contentious, but I want to explore your understanding of the tension between those two positions, because there is clearly at least a possibility that such a situation may occur.

What is your thinking on that? Critically, is the legal profession able to look at itself and say, “This isn’t a great look,” if there is even a sense that that might be the case?

However, you recognise my point that that could occur—that, where there is no proper financial governance as we would understand it, it is in the interest of lawyers, or some lawyers, to prolong an inquiry because there is a direct correlation with more billable hours for them, to put it simply. Indeed, many law firms reward their lawyers according to the number of billable hours that they put through on a particular—

I have a final question on costs. John Campbell, the convener has already asked you about this. You said in your submission that you do not see that it is necessary to publish individuals’ costs, and I understand the sensitivity around that. However, if you were looking to effect change, although there might be some initial pain if somebody’s costs are put in the public domain, that would very swiftly change behaviours. I am interested in your thoughts.

In all of these cases, if I were coming in to consult, I would ask what you could do to immediately make a difference and to start to shift the culture. Publishing that information seems to be one thing that could be done. Tell me a really good reason why, if we are starting to get a proper focus on costs and not just allowing for massive cost overruns, we would not actively seek to put the cost of everybody involved in a public inquiry in the public domain, in exactly the same way as our salaries go into the public domain and we must declare everything.

That speaks to a cultural issue, does it not, John Sturrock?

That leads back to the Government.

On that note, and picking up a point that the convener has made, there are surely two bare minimums. By way of disclosure, I note that, in one of my multiple previous lives, I ran large-scale so-called transformational change programmes for corporates. As programme manager, I would collate the terms of reference and the structure. I would head the programme and multiple project managers would report to me, while a project management office would deal with the gubbins. We would have a change control process and a clear established budget. There is no way that a project with a budget of even £500,000 would not have a proper, clear governance structure to manage costs, but that is contrary to what we are talking about.

To flesh out the idea, I note that that is one route, but there will be others. We need to know to what extent lawyers understand that they are not equipped to do that sort of thing—in fairness, they need not be, as that is not their role. They bring expertise in the law and huge capacity for attention to detail. Is that generally recognised or is there a tension in that, if that tidiness is not already in place, it may suit some law firms because, ultimately, it will result in increased billable hours and, therefore, profit?