Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are all pleased to hear about the updated FM. I am sure that we all agree on the worthiness of the bill, but this committee’s specific focus will always be on the money and the spend. You have indicated that there is uncertainty about the original estimates. I want to explore how you see the scale of the challenge going forward. We know that multiple areas of various sections are excluded from the original FM—those areas have no estimates at all. In addition to that, there is the group that you mentioned—I am sorry, but I have forgotten its name.

How will you assure yourself, first, that all costs are included, albeit in estimate form, and secondly, that the costs have taken account of what is now a high inflationary cost environment? Critically, I suppose that the question that I am probing is, to what extent will the FM be given the full weight it deserves, alongside the undoubted enthusiasm for what are some very strong policies?

Leading on from that, your submission also alludes to complexity—

Thank you. I would like to finish off with Professor Flinders, since he was cut off in his prime, as it were. Throughout this whole conversation is the theme of maturity, whether it is about how we deal with risk, innovation, complexity or power. Do you have any final thoughts or reflections on what you have heard thus far? This is the academic side of decision making.

Do you have any bright ideas on that?

Thank you for that. I am laughing slightly, given that we are operating in a political environment.

I do not disagree about any of the principles, but the devil will be in the detail. What I am looking for are your assurances that the multi-agency meetings will put an equivalent level of attention on the costs and the savings, which you have outlined, as they will on driving forward the policy. The last thing that you, as a new minister in post—and I appreciate that you are talking about something on which you have had no say—would want is for this to be subject to considerable cost overruns because the things that are missing from the FM are missing because they are complex and difficult and you do not have policy detail.

I suppose that I am looking for assurances, because some people think that the funding is quite dull compared with the policy; however, if you think that, you are taking a risk, and I would not want to see you do that. I am simply looking for your assurances that you will pass that on to the people who are supporting you.

Good morning. I will ask Professor Flinders a couple of questions from an academic perspective.

Your submission makes comments about culture, behaviour, avoiding groupthink, confirmation bias, and so on. You also point out that there is a need for critical friends. How is that limited when power—for instance, over someone’s job, career or their future line of funding, in instances where third sector organisations rely on Government—comes into play? What are your general thoughts about how prevalent that is and how commonly it is understood as a risk in the public sector?

That is helpful. The middle-road approach to continuous improvement that academia brings is worth the committee exploring further when we look at comparables in Scotland. I know that Sophie Howe wants to come in on my earlier point, then I will head back to Professor Flinders.

We cannot see you, but we can hear you clearly.

Okay. I get what you are saying about the scale of representation, and you make that point clear in your submission.

Have there been times when, in terms of line of sight of funding, you have felt that you or any of the organisations that you represent have been required to give what you might see as the right answer or the preferred answer because of the mechanism of funding and fears or uncertainty over that? Is that a general concern or a fear that you hold?