���˿���

I want to go back to where we started. If you do not mind my saying so, Lord Hardie, I had a little titter to myself when you made the quite reasonable point that nobody knows the scope of such a piece of work. You might have a better recollection than I do, but I distinctly remember the people undertaking the tram inquiry saying, “Frankly, we didn’t know how much uncertainty and complexity there was once they started digging underground.”

That speaks to the need for a proper, comprehensive approach. Although “project” is not quite the right terminology, because it is business focused, inquiries are projects in that they have a defined start and end, as well as all the other things that we have talked about: terms of reference, scope, purpose and budget. Last week, when Professor Cameron was in front of the committee, I asked him whether there was

“any other arena that you have dealt with, in the course of your career, where there is no cost control whatsoever although millions of pounds are involved; where the terms of reference do not ordinarily contain a budget; where there are no stage gates or phasing of the inquiry; and where there is no active monitoring? Have you ever come across that in any other walk of life in your career?”

He said:

“No, I have not.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 20 May 2025; c 41.]

Are we getting a bit confused by what I fully accept is the uncertainty and complexity? Public inquiries are, in and of themselves, the only project in any public sector or private business work that would not adopt a project methodology. Perhaps the question is better for you, Dr Ireton. Are there compelling reasons why we do not put some proper methodology in place?

I want to explore the potential for conflict of interest a wee bit. Last week, I brought that up with Professor Cameron, who made it clear that the potential for such conflicts was actively considered. Today, we have had several examples of that: I declared an interest, as did my colleague Liz Smith.

We have, however, seen the example of a solicitor who takes on or prospects for a very high-profile case and then actively advocates for—and lobbies their best friend for—a public inquiry. In that particular instance, the best friend happened to be the justice secretary in the Scottish Government. A public inquiry was then confirmed. This may be a question for you, Lord Hardie. Surely, in such instances, there must at least be the potential for a significant and disclosable conflict of interests. Is that a usual approach? Have you have seen such a conflict of interest? We have a small network of relationships in Scotland and that is certainly a consideration in Jersey, which is smaller again. Would you actively consider that or hope that it would be considered?

A question that would often be asked in such a case is who would benefit from any course of action. An example that I gave involved someone calling for an increase in the scope of a public inquiry while, at the same time, representing the core participants and therefore potentially being a significant beneficiary. As you say, that can often simply be about perception. We know that the chair can choose to take action, but are you aware of any formalised process that allows those questions to be asked?

That is the point that I am getting at. There could be a situation in which the chair would determine which lawyer would represent the core participants. I have already pointed out that who becomes a core participant is subject to criteria, but I think that you have confirmed the issue for me.

Good morning and thank you for joining us. My first question is for you, Richard, or for Laura Dunlop. How many times in your participation in a public inquiry has the chair challenged the costs that you have submitted?

I want to pick up on another point. I asked some questions earlier about the potential for conflict of interest. What is your experience of being asked to disclose any potential conflict of interest? Often, as we know, that does not necessarily mean that there is such a conflict. However, where there might be, or where there is even the illusion that there could be, or any hint at all, people will often disclose that information, because propriety is so important.

Are you aware of any processes in inquiries that you have dealt with in which the option for disclosure was given?

You said that that instance was dealt with as soon as it came to light, but my point is about whether you would ordinarily expect some kind of declaration of interest up front. There are many fora in which people would declare something up front, rather than when it came to light, which is potentially after the horse has bolted.

Perhaps I should bring in Michael Clancy. The example that I gave earlier involved a solicitor acting on behalf of core participants in an inquiry who had been calling vigorously, via the media, for a public inquiry and was also best friends with the justice secretary who granted the inquiry. In that example, what kind of action would you anticipate from the solicitor, under Law Society regulations, to set out at least a potential, if not an actual, conflict of interest?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I just want to finish off on couple of things. I think that it was you, Lord Hardie, who said that it would be up to the chair to go back to the Scottish Government if they were to seek an augmentation of the terms of reference. In one of the inquiries that is currently under way, there has been an intensive media campaign by one of the lawyers, rather than the chair, to press the Scottish Government for an augmentation of the terms of reference. Is that unusual, in your experience?

Okay—I am not certain about that.

I will also finish off the discussion about Maxwellisation. I disclose an interest, as I once ran a small business in primary research with Roger Mullin, who gave evidence about Maxwellisation. I read his submission with interest. One thing that is implicit rather than explicit relates to a power balance in going through the process of giving people the right to respond. I suspect that, inevitably, the people who have that right will have deeper pockets, and they may be representative companies. Has that power balance ever been considered in relation to Maxwellisation?