Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I would. One broad concern that we have is that the number of inquiries in Scotland and the UK have ratcheted up over the years. It seems as though inquiries are perhaps not becoming a first resort but are perhaps not far off it in some cases. It almost becomes a go-to approach when something is not working as perhaps it should.

Will you talk us through how you feel that we have arrived at that situation, and how we can counter that? I think it is the case that no one here believes that public inquiries are not necessary. However, that does not mean that every public inquiry is necessary.

It is important to acknowledge that all inquiries are unique and have different sets of circumstances, but would it be helpful if the Government took a consistent approach, with broad parameters set whereby members of the public would know whether an inquiry could and should be called for or, for example, whether what they are looking for, perhaps, is outwith the scope of a potential inquiry and that they should pursue other avenues of justice?

Does the confidence extend to the implementation of recommendations? One issue we have is that inquiries can often last years. Many people who feel that they have been the victims of an injustice look to an inquiry to deliver on their behalf. The Government takes the recommendations and says, “We will examine them”, and then years pass and they fade away.

That does not always happen—sometimes recommendations are implemented—but what is the delivery mechanism for recommendations in New Zealand? Does the Government feel almost compelled to implement recommendations, or does it take a more Australian perspective, shall we say?

Thank you very much for that. I want to thank you in particular for taking the time and the trouble to come all the way to Edinburgh to give evidence. The committee very much appreciates that. It is always best when people come here in person.

Our final evidence session on this inquiry will take place on 25 November. We will hear from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic in person. We will then publish a report setting out recommendations to the Scottish Government before the end of the year.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will now move into private session to consider two draft reports and a work programme. I will call a five-minute break to enable the official report and broadcasting teams to leave. Thank you very much.

It is interesting to look at the contrasts between here and Australia. The issue about inquiries here is that people want justice for a slight—or a perceived slight—or, indeed, want to look at how, say, a disaster that has happened can be avoided. An obvious example here in Scotland is the Piper Alpha disaster, in which 167 people died; that inquiry was actually brought in in 13 months at a fairly modest cost, and yet, as I have said, the costs of subsequent inquiries that we have had have gone up exponentially.

What is the trend in Australia with regard to that cost envelope? What kind of budgets are the Australian royal commissions brought in at? What controls do they have? Moreover, has there been an inflationary impact on budgets, or have they stayed much the same over the years?

We have only 36 judges in Scotland. If three or four of them are tied up in inquiries, it is a 10 per cent hit straight away to the court process.

We have no further questions from colleagues around the table so, as you will have heard me do in the previous session, I want to give you an opportunity to make any points or emphasise areas that you think that we have not covered.

What is the public perception of royal commissions in Australia? Do people have a lot of confidence in them? We understand that the public in Sweden have confidence in the equivalent processes there, which seem to be relatively short, sharp and inexpensive compared with the ones that we have just discussed.

No. [Laughter.]

I get the impression that you are not necessarily a big fan of royal commissions, that you feel that there is a preponderance of them, and that the knee-jerk reaction to almost any kind of event there is to call for one to be established. We have similar concerns here, in that everyone seems to think that a public inquiry is the answer. As you have pointed out, though, even if an inquiry is held sometimes people do not get from it the answers that they think they will.

One of the things that the committee is looking at is how we can provide a level of justice or restitution for victims in a way that is more timeous and fair to the taxpayer and wider society. As I understand it, New Zealand is trying to ensure a two-year timeframe for royal commissions. Is that realistic and deliverable? Is it likely to be breached in many cases or does it provide a discipline that enables much more efficient and effective working?