Chamber and committees

The total cost of the Sheku Bayoh inquiry is £51 million if you include both sides, because there are two sides to the issue—that is what we are looking at.

As I pointed out earlier, and as John Mason mentioned, there are significantly more UK inquiries, and the UK Government has spent about £1.5 billion.

We have not really touched on terms of reference. I think that we have to be clear and robust in setting terms of reference. We can look at the Piper Alpha and Dunblane shooting inquiries, for example. Those incidents were very traumatic for all those who lived through them and remember the details, and 167 men died on Piper Alpha and 16 children and a teacher died in Dunblane, and yet those were very short, succinct and straightforward inquiries that cost a fraction of the inquiries that we are talking about. I think that Lord Cullen’s inquiry into Piper Alpha cost under £2 million and lasted for just over a year.

As Professor Cameron stated in written evidence,

“It has to be recognised that inquiries are a source of substantial income for some large legal firms and as such the question arises as to the extent to which they are motivated to keep costs to a minimum and within budget.”

We have seen almost an explosion of legal costs. Do you find it inappropriate that some legal firms have people going on television demanding the establishment or extension of inquiries when they themselves have a direct pecuniary interest?

In her written evidence, Dr Ireton, who specialises in this area, said:

“there has been remarkably little evidence-based work commissioned on what inquiries cost, how they manage those costs, and how spending compares against original budgets.”

She also said that they are

“often ... concluded with minimal formal evaluation or system-wide learning.”

Is the Scottish Government going to alter that as we move forward?

We will make recommendations in our report, but it will be up to the Government to act on those.

We talked about public inquiries, with their interim reports, making changes as they go along. I would hope that the Government, seeing where we are coming from, would already be looking to make some changes.

To be honest, I do not think that you have been defensive at all.

They do it out of the goodness of their hearts—they do not get paid vast amounts of money, no? [Laughter.]

Deputy First Minister, I thank you and your officials for your contributions. Do you wish to make any further comments at this point?

Thank you very much. That was helpful and it generated quite a lot of questions that I want to ask. I am not going to ask all the questions that I want to ask, because I know that my colleagues are quite keen, and I do not want to tread on their toes, but I might come in after them, as well as before them.

I want to start with the guidance for public inquiries. I understand that it was laid in August 2024, but, despite having started an inquiry a couple of months before being informed of its existence on 30 May, the committee was then advised that the guidance would not be ready until October, and it has only just been published. Why has it taken 14 months to publish that guidance?

Thank you. One of the things that prompted our inquiry was concern about the cost of public inquiries, and that aspect has been covered in the media over the past 24 hours in particular. Since 2007, public inquiries in Scotland have cost £258.8 million. Over the same period, public inquiries in the UK have cost more than £1.5 billion. Such inquiries are becoming increasingly expensive.

One of the issues that I want to ask about is the opportunity cost. The Scottish Police Federation gave evidence to the committee in the spring. It was not very happy, to put it mildly, about the impact of inquiries on its ability to deliver services. If, for example, an inquiry falls under the responsibility of the police, it comes out of their budget. The Sheku Bayoh inquiry alone has cost the police more than £25 million. As you know, with the resignation of Lord Bracadale, that inquiry remains uncertain. The SPF said that the £25 million figure is equivalent to the cost of 500 police officers for a year.

When inquiries are started, what cognisance is taken of the impact that they will have on the services of the relevant organisation? The Emma Caldwell inquiry will also impact on the police. Certain politicians in the Parliament are also calling for an inquiry into grooming gangs. If that goes ahead, we could end up with three inquiries, all impacting on police resource.

Okay, but when people clamour for a public inquiry, they do not think that it will be five or 10 years before they get an outcome. When an inquiry takes five or 10 years, a lot of people are dissatisfied, first, at the length of time it has taken and, secondly, with the fact that recommendations are not always implemented. It might be that one Government brings in an inquiry to get something off its desk, but it is another Government that ends up in office when the report comes in.

With regard to practicalities and saving money, I think that there should be indicative timescales, because there should be a disciplined approach to public inquiries, as there is everywhere else. The national health service has to work to budgets, even in areas where it is saving people’s lives, so I do not see why inquiries cannot have at least a strong indicative budget and timescale.

Let us look, for example, at some ways that we could save money. First, there seems to be a reinvention of the wheel; numerous witnesses have talked about that. When an inquiry is called, there does not seem to be any central body or resource for people, facilities or training so that the inquiry can get started. When an inquiry is agreed, it might take a year or 18 months before it even starts, because there is all that faffing around at the start.

A second area is solicitors. We know about the huge amount of money that solicitors are paid in this regard, but my understanding is that solicitors and counsel who rely on funding from the Scottish Government are on a reduced hourly rate and have their fees pored over. That is right, because it is public money. However, other bodies that are also publicly funded, such as health boards, understand that they are paying their counsel commercial rates.

It seems to me that one way to save money would be for all lawyers who are paid out of public funds, whether directly or indirectly through the Government, to be subject to the same hourly rates and careful scrutiny of fees. Would that be a way forward as a start?