���˿���

The fact that you followed up on the recommendations by going back two years later was of great interest to me. You are absolutely right that some inquiries spend years taking evidence, then a report is published, something is published in the media and the Government might make a statement in Parliament, but that is it. Whether the recommendations are delivered and in what timeframe is an issue. The Government might say, “We will accept these recommendations,” but it does not say that it will implement them in a year or in two, three, four or five years. It does not say that it will implement them by date X.

That goes back to the issue of getting justice for the people for whom the inquiry was set up in the first place. As you will be aware, inquiries are sometimes set up by Governments that are under pressure and think that an inquiry is a good way of kicking things into touch. However, I was quite amazed that you seem to be the only one who has actually followed through and used the process of returning. That jumped out from your statement, as did many other things.

In your written submission, you state:

“The first UK Inquiry was held into the death of a foster child Dennis O’Neil in 1945. It was chaired by Sir Walter Monkton KC who commenced in March and reported in May. His report was 15 pages long and the recommendations he made have been repeated in every child care inquiry since then.”

Basically, you are saying that, in some inquiries, there is a reinvention of the wheel whereby recommendations that were made some 80 years ago, which would probably still have some validity now, have still not really been implemented.

My degree was in economics, so I love to read the phrase “opportunity costs” in a submission, and you raise an important point on that issue. People see the costs. In Scotland, £230 million has been spent on public inquiries, and the figure in the UK is £1.5 billion, but those are only the above-the-surface costs. Inquiries can be like an iceberg—you see only the bit above the surface.

You talk about the hidden costs to participants, such as local authorities, for redaction, the preparation of documents and staff time. You also talk about the emotional impact on not just the victims or alleged victims, but people who give evidence from a professional point of view. We understand that, in at least one of the inquiries that we have been looking at, the real costs, if you want to call them that, are double the stated costs, because of those opportunity costs. Those costs have to come out of a public service or local government, so that money is not being spent on public services if it has to be redirected into the cost of an inquiry. Could those hidden costs be brought more into the public domain, so that people can see the true impact of inquiries?

I will ask one last question. Colleagues are, understandably, keen to come in.

On this issue, you have said:

“There is a need to examine ways in which the costs of inquiries can be contained without being seen to compromise independence. Could inquiries be expected to work to set budgets and timetables as opposed to the somewhat open ended arrangements which pertain at present and which too often result in escalating costs.”

Surely, they should be expected to do that. I cannot think of any other area of government where there is an open-ended timescale or budget. We do not set a capital contract and say, “Just take as long as you like and spend as much as you want.” That is not said explicitly to inquiries, but it is almost said implicitly. No one says it, but that is almost the way it appears to be when one considers how inquiries are rolled out.

In the Vale of Leven inquiry, for example, the health secretary at the time said that they were looking for a report within 15 months. The judge said, “We’ll do it as soon as possible,” but that turned out to be five years. Do you believe that there should be parameters for costs and timescales, as there are in any other area of the public sector?

I call Liz Smith, to be followed by Craig Hoy.

I should point out that New Zealand’s Covid investigation is a royal commission. It is chaired by an epidemiologist, and the panel is made up of a former Government minister and a treasury secretary rather than a judge. Its deadline for concluding is next February.

I call Michael Marra.

Liz, did you want to come in?

I have given you a lot of leeway, but you know what we are discussing today.

Liz, I think that you should rescind your retirement in order to progress that in the next parliamentary session.

Private companies do it all the time. If you have a budget of £64 billion, even if 1 per cent of that has not been allocated efficiently, that is a lot of money. It is about going back to first principles and asking what we are trying to achieve from the spend and whether we are achieving it. That is really about it.

Yes, I do not think that we are pushing at an open door here, to be honest with you. Nevertheless, we shall certainly valiantly pursue our aims.

Thank you, Professor Cameron, for your very helpful contribution, for taking the time to speak to the committee and for your excellent submission. We will continue to take evidence on the inquiry next week, when we will hear from two panels of witnesses.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. The next item on our agenda, which we will discuss in private, is consideration of our work programme.