Chamber and committees

Thank you. That was helpful.

Have the other two witnesses identified any difficulties in establishing clarity of purpose on what they are trying to achieve?

That is very helpful. Several of us here had an excellent visit to the Welsh Senedd a couple of months ago and were very taken with quite a few things that we heard. Please pass that back.

I ask our final witness to finish the discussion on clarity of purpose.

Minister, you talked in your opening remarks about the initial engagement with stakeholders and said that the evidence that they provided was the basis for the first attempt at a financial memorandum. You are now suggesting that the second financial memorandum will have to take cognisance of the fact that some of that evidence was perhaps not as complete as it might have been. What will have to be added to the second financial memorandum, given that the evidence that you took for the first one is turning out not to be accurate?

Given the criticism of the bill that has been levelled by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and various other groups, do you expect that, at that meeting, they will come forward with a carefully worded argument to the Scottish Government about what they think would need to be adjusted in the second financial memorandum in order to give an accurate reflection of the costs? Is that your understanding?

I understand the point about reflecting what is right for children, and I get the point about the UNCRC. What I and the committee are concerned about and have been concerned about with previous financial memoranda is the process of scrutiny of the figures that go into them. That is our big concern and it has been with various things over the past couple of years. I am just trying to make sure that Parliament is absolutely watertight on that scrutiny.

Are you able to access the information that you require relatively quickly?

We will go to Wales first.

Thank you, Professor Martin. The distinction that you have made between the two processes with regard to advising ministers is interesting. How easy do you find the second process—that is, looking at the evidence and guiding the minister to the data that might have been there previous to the decision that is made? Are you data rich or are there gaps in the knowledge that you have to provide to the minister?

Can you give us an example of a time when different types of evidence have pointed in different directions and the difficulties that that might have caused?

Thank you.