���˿���

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.

Your report also said that

“commissions have no specific power to compel private individuals or entities to provide them information or testimony”.

What are the implications of that? Will you also tell us about the role of the legal profession in inquiries in Sweden?

I want to let my colleagues in so I do not want to go on for too much longer. I am thinking about major investigative inquiries, such as the inquiry into the MS Estonia maritime disaster, which lasted 24.9 months. Some 852 people died in that disaster, which I remember very vividly. I looked at the memorial in Tallin when the committee was in Estonia last year. For events that are as emotive as that, if you cannot compel witnesses, how difficult is it to get the kind of outcome that would be desired by the families of the victims and so on? The report talks about how the system has a very high level of public acceptance in Sweden. In cases like the Estonia disaster, how would the legal profession be involved and what would the impact of that be on the delivery of that inquiry?

Thank you very much. Before we wind up, I have one final question for Professor Dahlström. The research says:

“The government is under no formal obligation to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. In practice, since policy advisory inquiries are an integrated part of the overall policy process, many inquiries have led to institutional or legislative change.”

What about investigative inquiries? In response to the adoption commission, the Swedish Government said:

“The government takes the commission’s presentation very seriously, and we will now carefully analyze their conclusions and proposals to make well-considered decisions moving forward.”

Is there a difference between policy and investigative inquiries in terms of how recommendations are implemented? It seems that policy proposals are much more likely to be implemented. Is that just my reading of it, or are the recommendations of both inquiry types being implemented effectively?

Thank you for that. I ask our guests whether, in winding up, they want to make any final points or emphasise any issue or area that they feel that we have not covered yet. Dr Prasser would you like to go first?

Professor Dahlström, the last word is yours.

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?