Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 1 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1769 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Good morning. Thank you very much for joining us. I reflect what my colleague Liz Smith said.

I am interested in you thinking about your cultures. I mean culture not just within your states or sub-states, but in your legal profession, culture in general, in the media and so on. To what extent is culture and trust a consideration in the type of inquiry that is agreed in your jurisdictions?

The reason why I ask that question is that I find myself reflecting on whether it is the case that within the United Kingdom, trust in institutions is very low and that has, in people’s eyes, necessitated the need for these judge-led inquiries with the resultant issues. I think that both of you may have a reflection or a perspective on the UK, and indeed Scotland, from the outside looking in, that I would be interested in hearing about. Perhaps you could go first, Professor Dahlström, and reflect a little on trust and culture within Sweden and then give us some reflections on what you see from the outside looking in.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

You are being very diplomatic. Perhaps I can hear from Dr Prasser, with similar reflections.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Dr Prasser, sorry, we lost you for a minute there. Would you mind going back to the story about the boat and the point at which a royal commission was set up? Thank you very much.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Yes, I can.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Thank you very much for that.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

I mean fee submissions. I should have been clear.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Good morning. Thank you very much for joining us. I will ask you some questions that reflect more on the integrity and reputation of the legal sector around public inquiries. Today, you will stoutly defend things where you deem it appropriate, and I have no issue with that. However, I want to explore with you situations in which a conflict of interest, or a potential conflict of interest, could ultimately affect the legal profession’s reputation.

I ask you to bear in mind the fact that we see that a lot as politicians. If a person says, “I would never do that,” that does not necessarily mean that it could never happen. For example, we have seen lawyers use the media to whip up demand for a public inquiry. In some instances, they have done so very successfully, because it has helped to trigger an inquiry. They have brought out people who have been terribly wronged, whose view is that there should be an inquiry, and stories run about it and so on.

That seems to be quite a departure from how your firm does things. In the first instance, what is your perception of how you can add your voice on whether there should be a public inquiry, as opposed to going direct to the media and using it? What is your sense of that as a company?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

We have raised this question before. The Law Society of Scotland said that it was not clear whether it would simply be a case of the lawyer exercising their freedom of speech. Compass Chambers said that it is not a relevant conflict of interest if the lawyer is advancing their client’s position. I took from that response that it is somewhere that it did not want to go.

Going back to the reputational and ethical aspects of it, there can often be a perception of a conflict of interest regardless of whether there is. I am trying to explore the question of removing that perception. There might well be a tipping point. Nobody is suggesting that rules have been broken—that is not the point. I am more trying to advance the question of perception. Can I take it that it is not the normal route—certainly for your company—to go direct to the media instead of lobbying Parliament? Do you have experience of how other law firms bring a matter to the public’s attention?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

To finish on this point, I will ask about culture. Chairs will vary. I raised the question previously—apologies, but I have forgotten who was giving evidence—and I think that the witness alluded to the fact that he would take a dim view of the kind of scenario that I have set out. I respected what he said.

To what extent is there a culture in which some lawyers do not like to challenge other lawyers? If you are coming from a position in which ethics and propriety should be at the very heart of what you do, which you would sign up to from the start of your career, that culture would make it quite hard to challenge someone. What is your experience of being challenged by a chair on your submissions to various inquiries?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Michelle Thomson

Good morning, panel. I will come to you first, Peter Drummond, and explore what you meant in one of the sentences in your submission. You said:

“The RIAS has concerns about proportionality and the use of retrospective quasi-hypothecation.”

I am clear on the terms “proportionality” and “retrospective”, but I wonder about the use of the term “quasi-hypothecation”. What do you mean by that?