Chamber and committees

I entirely accept the point about cost of living issues, inflation and so on—that is absolutely accurate. However, you seem to be suggesting that more information will have to come forward in order to make the second financial memorandum more accurate.

You said that you are having a meeting on 5 June. Can you explain to us your expectations of the additional information that you are looking for so that the committee can be more confident that the second financial memorandum is more reflective of the true costs than the first attempt?

No committee could expect the figures in any financial memorandum to be absolutely spot-on first time round—that is a given, as Parliament’s experience tells us.

Nevertheless, we are on the back of having a look at the first financial memorandum for the proposed national care service, which—as you know—was found, by general consensus, to be very seriously lacking, to the extent that this committee sent it back because it was just not good enough. If we come to a point at which a second financial memorandum is required, that would mean, by implication, either that additional information is forthcoming or that there would be an updated set of statistics that builds on the first financial memorandum.

I am interested to know to what extent you think that the meeting that you are having with stakeholders will bring forward any additional information, because I suggest that that is the expectation.

The bill stands to benefit a little bit—as I understand it, other committees have been looking at it, and there is general agreement that the principles of it are good. The concern is that if we are not going to get the second financial memorandum until after stage 1 is completed, that raises questions about the process between stage 1 and stage 2. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee, it is our job to make sure that the process is absolutely watertight and that, between those two stages, the relevant information is put before the Parliament.

As I said, that has been a concern for us with previous bills. Can you give us an undertaking that that will happen so that the new financial memorandum is much more accurate on what the figures will be?

That is helpful.

If we find ourselves in a situation in which a particular policy has failed to deliver the good intention, which sometimes happens, are there adequate processes to ensure that a proper review takes place to establish why the good intention was not implemented and to ask what will be done about it the next time, or do we need to make changes to the existing processes? One difficulty is that the Parliament’s post-legislative facility is quite limited—for a start, we do not have a revising chamber, nor do committees have much time to look at what happens when a policy goes wrong. What could be done to mitigate that and to improve the process so that, if there are failures, we do something about them?

That is an interesting point and an astute observation. Is it a part of the problem that the available data is not as good as it should be?

When the Fraser of Allander Institute, the Carnegie Trust and Audit Scotland came before us, they were all clear about the paramount need for clarity of purpose in policy making—that was pretty much the first thing that they all said. In your relationships with Government, when you have assisted with policy, have you felt that that clarity of purpose was there in each case? If not, can you give us an idea of what the problem was?

Just on that point, with reference to what Lucy Hughes said, when a policy transcends several Government portfolios—for example, children and young people, or planning—how easy is it to get a common agreement on the delivery of the policy if there are conflicting problems?

Does anyone else have any comments on that issue?

That is interesting, in light of some of the comments that we have picked up in private session—so no names attached—from former civil servants and former ministers. That has been highlighted in The Times newspaper this morning.

Because of the difficulties that you have just cited, do decisions sometimes have to be rushed, and not enough time devoted to thinking through—to pick up on Craig McLaren’s point—exactly how things will be manifested in policy making. Is that a problem?