Meeting of the Parliament 26 February 2026 [Draft]
There we go. Let the excitement commence!
We also talked a lot about budgets. I consider it to be absolutely fair that budget lines are phased and are signed off throughout a public inquiry. However, during our inquiry, several of us commented on the fact that there is no other area of public life where there seem to be unlimited budgets and no cost control. That is absolutely outrageous. I am sympathetic to what lawyers say about following the evidence, and it is correct to do that, but it seems to me that we have thrown up our hands and said that it is too difficult and that we do not want to upset some lawyers by introducing controls. There is no other walk of life where we would accept that. Budgets are utterly fundamental and I have been heartened by what the Deputy First Minister said.
We must also be able to publish costs. Let us be clear: some law firms have made millions and millions of pounds from the public purse and we do not know about that. That cannot be acceptable. In recommendation 223,
“we ask that public inquiries record and publish costs in a consistent manner”
and that those costs are itemised.
I am sorry for not having expended your generosity, Presiding Officer, as I now come to my final comment. The point is important because I am aware that the Deputy First Minister will not be in her current role after this session—indeed nor will I, nor Liz Smith, while the future for many other members remains to be seen. Recommendation 278
“asks the Parliament to consider adding oversight of public inquiries to an existing parliamentary committee’s remit”.
I consider that to be important. My personal judgment is that adding the public administration remit to that of the finance committee has been a great success and should continue. The cost-effectiveness of public inquiries, along with their transparency and governance, are vital, so I consider it imperative that that should happen.