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 17 October 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3805 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

I completely agree with you, but there is an issue with the scrutiny. Someone—the clerk of works, or whoever—has to check that the work has been implemented to the correct standard.

Two years down the line from a development in my constituency—I will not say which one—being fully occupied, we suddenly found out that the sewerage system had not been installed to the required standard, which is causing issues, as you can imagine. It is not just about having the regulations but about ensuring that they are fully implemented.

Mr Drummond, you said:

“Firstly, Scotland needs to preserve and build upon its existing public sector building control system. Secondly, procurement must be very substantially improved to ensure higher quality in construction.”

How do we do that? Do we have the people with the skills to do that? Is that quality out there? What lead time did you have in mind for implementing that?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

In that case, I thank you for your evidence this morning, which is very helpful to the committee in its deliberations.

10:29 Meeting suspended.  

10:54 On resuming—  

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

The final item on our agenda is to take evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I welcome to the meeting Patrick McGuire of Thompsons Solicitors Scotland. Good morning, Mr McGuire, and thank you for your written submission. I want to express how glad I am that you accepted the invitation to give evidence—it is greatly appreciated by the committee.

We will move straight to questions. I will start by quoting a question that was raised by Professor Cameron, who was one of the first people to give evidence on this matter. You may have seen what he said:

“It has to be recognised that inquiries are a source of substantial income for some large legal firms and as such the question arises as to the extent to which they are motivated to keep costs to a minimum and within budget.”

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

You must have known that it was coming up—come on.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

I understand—we just have a lot to get round. My question was very long, and I apologise for that, too.

Some witnesses have told us that a number of things can be done to make inquiries more efficient and effective, such as having a proper secretariat that has built up some institutional memory of how inquiries are successfully conducted, instead of having to reinvent the wheel, as we seem to do with every inquiry.

Tens of thousands of documents often have to be duplicated, but why does a trained lawyer have to do that? Can it be done by a paralegal or someone else? Would that reduce the cost? Apparently, it has a significant impact on the overall cost of any inquiry to have qualified lawyers copying 100,000 documents. All that I am saying is that, even with the system that we have and even if you accept that the system as it is should continue, there must be ways of reducing the costs to the public purse. After all, the cost of an inquiry might ultimately mean fewer officers on the street. It does have an impact.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Mr Henderson, do you also find that to be the case?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Thank you for that.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

I think that it would be the public bodies saying to the inquiry, within six to 12 weeks, “This is what we will do”. However, that does not preclude the inquiry taking evidence from people subsequently.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

The issue of marking their own homework is important. The reason why the inquiry would still take place, even in those circumstances, is to ensure that the result was not, “Okay, everything is fine—we will just move on”.

The last point that I will make is about capacity. I mentioned earlier that there are 36 senior judges, and if three of them are involved in inquiries, that will have an impact on trials. What do you think is the maximum number of inquiries that can run in Scotland at any one time without derailing the day-to-day delivery of justice in Scotland through ordinary criminal trials?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

But that is the dichotomy, is it not? That is why I was talking earlier about opportunity costs, and why a number of other organisations and, indeed, jurisdictions—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden and Denmark, all of which we will be considering in the next two weeks—do this differently. They do not have the gold standard of a judge, because of the impact on their systems, but they are able to deliver these things in a different way.