Chamber and committees

Timeframes are really important—that is what I was going to ask you about next. We hear from the Government about plans for reform, but we do not necessarily get detail on what is to be reformed and by which date. It seems to be a moveable feast. I was thinking about my tax return—the reason why I filed it at the end of January is because the deadline is the end of January; if it were the end of February, I would probably do it then, because there is always something else to do. Not having deadlines means that things drift, and we have seen such drift quite consistently. Documents that are due never seem to arrive ahead of or on time—there always seems to be some drift in that. That is the same with the medium-term financial strategy.

Something that has also come up is that, when the Scottish budget is delivered, there does not seem to be detail on the outcomes that it is trying to achieve. It is a two-dimensional document in which we see the figures in certain portfolios either going up, staying the same or going down across the years, but we do not see what the Government is trying to achieve. You valiantly try to put that on the record in a 20 or 30-minute statement, but you cannot possibly get all that detail in.

I do not think that anyone wants to see a 500-page document—140 pages is sufficient—but there is room for more detail on outcomes. In particular, there is room to link the budget to the national performance framework to see how it ties in, because there is a view that the two do not seem to correlate as well as they perhaps should.

We should maybe revisit that.

Great stuff. I hope that it does not clash with our away days on 26 and 27 August, but there you go. We will certainly ask you about that in the not-too-distant future.

As a committee, we will consider the evidence that we have received and, next month, we will publish a report on the Scottish budget in practice.

We will take a five-minute break, now, to allow for a change of witnesses.

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I am pleased that we are joined by Ross Greer. Ross had the difficult job of being in two places at once this morning, but it is great that he is with us for this session.

This is our first evidence session in our inquiry. As stated in the committee papers, our aim is to foster greater understanding of the current position with public inquiries in Scotland; to enhance clarity around the purpose, framework and decision-making process for establishing public inquiries and their terms of reference; to ascertain whether public inquiries deliver value for money; and to identify any examples of good practice or alternatives to the current model. However, we will not make recommendations on the merits, or otherwise, of individual Scottish Government decisions on whether to hold a specific public inquiry, or on recommendations made by individual public inquiries.

I am delighted to welcome to the meeting Professor Sandy Cameron CBE. Professor Cameron, we have your fascinating and thought-provoking written submission, so we will move straight to questions. I have to say that your submission is a bit of a showstopper. It is short, sharp and certainly to the point, so let us get into it. You said that you can

“confidently predict that ... inquiries will last longer than anticipated and cost more than budgeted for.”

Why is it that inquiries always seem to overrun, both in cost and time?

On the medium-term financial strategy, we understood in January that, when the date of the UK spending review was set, the medium-term financial strategy would be published, too. We were quite surprised that there was a change to that date. In your letter, you say that the reason for that is that the UK Government has not worked closely with the Scottish Government, despite its assertions that it would do so and would reset the relationship between the two Governments, moving away from the relationship that existed under the previous UK Government. You specifically mentioned the Chief Secretary for the Treasury and his lack of engagement with the devolved Parliaments. Could you say more about that?

A steer, basically.

The committee has written to the CST about our engagement with him, so I understand where you are on that.

Colleagues will have questions about this matter in relation to the wider issues that we are deliberating on this morning, so this is my last question on it. In your letter to the committee, you said:

“The Prime Minister’s announcement on the prioritisation of defence spending was a significant development, which came after my original decision on the date of the MTFS”.

What about the statement in March? Is that likely to have much impact?

I will open up the evidence session to committee members. Michael Marra is first.

The fact that you followed up on the recommendations by going back two years later was of great interest to me. You are absolutely right that some inquiries spend years taking evidence, then a report is published, something is published in the media and the Government might make a statement in Parliament, but that is it. Whether the recommendations are delivered and in what timeframe is an issue. The Government might say, “We will accept these recommendations,” but it does not say that it will implement them in a year or in two, three, four or five years. It does not say that it will implement them by date X.

That goes back to the issue of getting justice for the people for whom the inquiry was set up in the first place. As you will be aware, inquiries are sometimes set up by Governments that are under pressure and think that an inquiry is a good way of kicking things into touch. However, I was quite amazed that you seem to be the only one who has actually followed through and used the process of returning. That jumped out from your statement, as did many other things.

In your written submission, you state:

“The first UK Inquiry was held into the death of a foster child Dennis O’Neil in 1945. It was chaired by Sir Walter Monkton KC who commenced in March and reported in May. His report was 15 pages long and the recommendations he made have been repeated in every child care inquiry since then.”

Basically, you are saying that, in some inquiries, there is a reinvention of the wheel whereby recommendations that were made some 80 years ago, which would probably still have some validity now, have still not really been implemented.

My degree was in economics, so I love to read the phrase “opportunity costs” in a submission, and you raise an important point on that issue. People see the costs. In Scotland, £230 million has been spent on public inquiries, and the figure in the UK is £1.5 billion, but those are only the above-the-surface costs. Inquiries can be like an iceberg—you see only the bit above the surface.

You talk about the hidden costs to participants, such as local authorities, for redaction, the preparation of documents and staff time. You also talk about the emotional impact on not just the victims or alleged victims, but people who give evidence from a professional point of view. We understand that, in at least one of the inquiries that we have been looking at, the real costs, if you want to call them that, are double the stated costs, because of those opportunity costs. Those costs have to come out of a public service or local government, so that money is not being spent on public services if it has to be redirected into the cost of an inquiry. Could those hidden costs be brought more into the public domain, so that people can see the true impact of inquiries?