Hansard

John Mason makes an important point. That is one of the reasons why we are looking to have public inquiries on shorter timescales and with defined budgets. As I will go on to say, that happens in other countries.

We have asked the Scottish Government for clear guidance to set out the core purpose, scope and limitations of public inquiries and to inform defined timescales and budgets at the point of establishment. Ministers have limited ability to control expenditure and limit spiralling costs once an inquiry is up and running. Indeed, it appears to be the only area of public expenditure in which costs and timescales are of little importance.

International examples show that that does not have to be the case. In Sweden, since 1982, public inquiries have been expected to conclude within two years and within a set budget. That includes very detailed inquiries—not least, for example, the inquiry into the MS Estonia ferry disaster, in which 852 lives were lost, and, of course, Sweden’s own Covid inquiry.

We therefore asked the Scottish Government to amend the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 to require defined budgets and timescales for inquiries, and for Parliament to be notified, with justification, of any extensions that are provided. In the longer term, we have asked Scottish ministers to work with the UK Government to update the Inquiries Act 2005, to make that a primary legislative requirement. It is disappointing that our recommendation has not been accepted. Instead, ministers will continue to consider on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis whether terms of reference need to be explicit on anticipated timescales.

The Scottish Government’s response suggests that there is a statutory duty for the chair to avoid unnecessary costs and to ensure that the running of the inquiry is adequate. Our evidence is clear that current rules are insufficient to contain spiralling inquiry costs. We ask for better information and greater transparency around the running of public inquiries and the decision‑making processes that lead to their establishment, including a clear framework that requires alternatives to be considered first.

The committee is also concerned that the current practice of appointing serving judges to chair public inquiries places significant strain on Scotland’s civil and criminal courts. If three or four of our 36 judges are taken out of circulation to preside over inquiries, 10 per cent of criminal cases are likely to face delays. When one considers that a judge handles, on average, 34 criminal cases a year, that is a substantial number of cases that will not be heard when they should be. Therefore, greater consideration of an inquiry’s opportunity costs is essential, and I will touch on that again shortly.

Evidence has shown that trusted policy experts have successfully chaired inquiries in the UK and internationally. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government strengthen its guidance to ensure that all options—legal chairs, expert chairs and expert panels—are considered when launching an inquiry.

Although we welcome the Deputy First Minister’s openness to appointing inquiry chairs who are not serving members of the judiciary, that has not been the practice of the Scottish Government to date. We ask that, when establishing future inquiries, ministers clearly set out the reasoning behind their choice of chair and the criteria and alternatives considered, which should reflect the purpose of the inquiry and the skill set that is required.

We further ask for enhanced guidance on drafting terms of reference and better support for chairs once they are appointed. Chairs sometimes reinvent the wheel, so there is a clear need for proper induction and training, adoption of best practice and adequate support for both inquiry teams and the public bodies that are impacted by public inquiries. The Scottish Government’s response is positive on reviewing guidance and on improving transparency, but it does not commit to making the specific changes that we seek. That includes carrying out a short research project on drafting and amending terms of reference in advance of the next parliamentary session.

Redirecting funds to inquiries can impact on public service delivery. The Scottish Government should establish a central budget for public inquiries to avoid further strain on specific public services. For example, the Scottish Police Federation was very clear in evidence about the impact that inquiries can have on front-line policing, so we disagree with the Scottish Government’s position that the administration of public inquiries should be funded via the sponsoring ministerial portfolio, and we do not accept that moving to a central budget arrangement would risk reducing incentives for public bodies to manage costs and be the most efficient manager, as the Government suggests. Where is the evidence for that?

Finally, but importantly, we are concerned about the serious lack of transparency in how public inquiry recommendations are implemented, if at all. We urge the Scottish Government to establish a robust, transparent system for tracking and public reporting on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Members can learn more about the Scottish Government’s response when the deputy convener winds up for the committee.

Our findings and recommendations were designed to strike a balance between allowing flexibility to meet the unique circumstances of individual public inquiries while strengthening financial control and promoting fiscal sustainability. I welcome the Scottish Government’s generally positive reception to our report, but I am disappointed that it has fallen short of accepting many of the concrete, practical and evidenced actions that our committee recommended.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 14th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on the Cost-effectiveness of Scottish Public Inquiries (SP Paper 943).