Chamber and committees

Thank you very much for your very helpful evidence. As we have another panel of witnesses, we will have a five-minute natural break and then reconvene.

This is the second part of our evidence session on the cost effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I welcome Michael Clancy, director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland; Laura Dunlop KC, convener of the law reform committee of the Faculty of Advocates; and Richard Pugh KC, from Compass Chambers.

Thank you for your submissions. I will begin with a question for Michael Clancy, which is based on his paper, although others can come in as they wish. You have said that cost control

“should not be judged on rules which apply to business enterprises.”

However, those costs are not being imposed on business enterprises—the cost is to the public sector.

I will take you to a live case. The Scottish Parliament information centre has told us that operation tarn, which supports the on-going public inquiry into the death of Sheku Bayoh, has so far cost Police Scotland £17 million in legal costs. Police Scotland says that it

“has been involved in a number of high-profile public inquiries in recent years which have had significant legal and administrative costs, redirecting both financial and human resources away from other critical areas of policing.”

If there are no cost controls and costs are just allowed to rise almost exponentially, as seems to be happening in that case, that must have an impact on other public services. One has to wonder about the value of a public inquiry in the light of the greater public good, as the police seem to indicate.

Thank you for that. Ms Dunlop, in your statement you say that

“the Piper Alpha and the Dunblane shootings Inquiries had succinct, general statement of purpose and were not subject to significant cost or overrun.”

Those were horrific incidents and we all remember them very well, but the inquiries seem to have been delivered much more timeously and effectively. You then go on to say that, in your view,

“producing a high-quality report within a relatively short timeframe may lead to more challenges in managing costs.”

I do not know what you mean by a “relatively short timeframe”, so you might want explain that.

You also say:

“There is often a trade-off between time, cost, and quality. It is generally understood that prioritising two of these factors can reduce control over the third.”

That seems to almost contradict what you said about Piper Alpha and Dunblane. I imagine that those inquiries were not only done timeously and for a reasonable cost. Those were also quality inquiries, were they not?

More than 160 men died in that disaster, so it was a major focus at the time. One would have thought that technology would have made things easier rather than more difficult and complex.

I should have put on record the fact that the Scottish Parliament information centre has said that, on average, legal costs account for 35 per cent of the cost of an inquiry, so we are not saying that it is all about the lawyers.

Our paper from SPICe also says:

“After the Chair, the inquiry secretary is probably the most important person for the running of a successful inquiry. The secretary is usually recruited from the civil service; however, this is for the chair to decide.”

Should experience of controlling budgets be considered when selecting an inquiry secretary?

You mentioned efficiency. In response to question 5, the Faculty of Advocates’ written submission says:

“Having an inquiry team of sufficient size to allow conduct of hearings into one topic to take place at the same time as preparation of the next topic”

is important.

How many people are needed for a sufficient team in a standard inquiry? I know that they are all different.

My God—you will be all right for a tap.

Indeed, but what are the parameters? Is it five counsel? Is it 50?

In the previous memorandum, there were specific sections on IT. Mention has been made of the fact that we are somehow expected to read the two previous financial memorandums in conjunction with the financial update. Would it not be easier to have one comprehensive document that laid out all the costs, as the committee requested some weeks ago? What is the point in looking at what the costs were projected to be in 2022 or 2023? That needs to be put to one side. We want to know what the position is as we go forward, and one comprehensive, easy-to-access document that included IT as a component would provide that.

That is a worry, but I shall leave it at that.

I will give the minister the final word. Are there any further points that you wish to relay to the committee before I wind up the session?

Some of the evidence that we took from witnesses suggested a kind of wonderment as to why we were even having a fiscal sustainability plan as opposed to having such a plan in the medium-term financial strategy. The Fraser of Allander Institute, for example, thought that a separate document was unnecessary. Why is such a document necessary? We frequently hear from witnesses about the plethora of plans and strategies that the Government has. Although I understand why you would have a plethora across the Government, in finance alone there always seem to be plans and strategies that do not seem to be joined up. We have received comment that greater clarity on how the strategies join up would be good. Even better would be if there were one overarching strategy that incorporated everything, as opposed to all the different plans and strategies that seem to run in different directions.