Lord Carloway

In a letter to MSPs considering judge-led public hearings, Lord Carloway, 71, who retired this year, criticised the inquiries into tainted blood and Edinburgh’s trams.

“It is difficult to comment on whether [inquiries] are cost-effective. That depends upon what they were, or are, intended to achieve and, more important, what they ultimately do achieve. In some cases, both north and south of the border, the answer to that may be quite a lot (eg Dunblane or Piper Alpha) or it may be very little (eg infected blood and trams),” he said.

Lord Carloway, who as lord president had to select judges for inquiry roles, noted that inquires imposed strain on the small group of newly retired judges in Scotland.

He wrote: “This became increasingly difficult over time as more and more judges came to realise that taking on a public inquiry would involve a considerable time commitment (ie years of their professional lives) with very little recognition (see eg the press criticisms of the infected blood, tram, Sheku Bayoh, child abuse and other inquiries).”

As for suggestion to keep inquiries on track, he wrote: “If economy of scale is to be achieved, two things have to be in place: first, a proper secretariat which has built up an institutional memory of how inquiries are successfully conducted; and, secondly, a proper framework of rules within which times for actions can reasonably be stipulated. These are at the core of legal procedures generally. They are not present within the public inquiry set-up.”

A Scottish government spokesman said: “Public inquiries operate independently of government and the chair has a legal duty to avoid unnecessary costs. Public inquiries are set up when no other avenue is deemed sufficient given the issues of public concern.

“Recommendations made by a public inquiry can be acted on by the Scottish government or public bodies, where appropriate.”