Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there WhatsApp messages between civil servants and ministers? Does that happen?

You mentioned prevention right at the start and the committee has been talking about the subject for quite a while. We often hear it mentioned, but we also often hear that it is quite difficult to find the funding for prevention because all the money is going into dealing with immediate effects. How will you change that?

I will build on the point that Michelle Thomson was making by asking a question about transparency. Professor Flinders, in your submission, you talk about two different aspects of transparency:

“transparency of the decision-making process”

and

“transparency around the reason for why a final decision was taken”,

which I think is what you were just talking about.

In previous evidence sessions, we have heard that, in New Zealand, minutes of Cabinet meetings are published a few weeks after the meeting has taken place. From your point of view, would that be a good thing or would it—the expression “government by WhatsApp” has been used in previous meetings—drive a lot of the decisions away from Cabinet meetings if the process were almost too transparent?

Social Work Scotland also notes a lack of available secure accommodation. Who would be responsible for providing such accommodation? Do you have, or will there be, capital budget in the financial memorandum to try to plug that gap?

The figure seems to be based on the £6,500 weekly cost for secure accommodation. So, my final question is about whether the cost for a 12-year-old in secure accommodation is the same as the cost of a 17-year-old. Would we expect to see differences between those two costs?

So you do not anticipate that secure accommodation providers will charge more for a 17-year-old.

Minister, what assurances can you give local government that it will not be impacted financially by the bill?

Skills and training are an area that has been highlighted. Will that be covered by the updated financial memorandum?

Social Work Scotland was quite critical as well. It said that it

“does not consider that the Financial Memorandum sufficiently appreciates the scale and financial costs of those changes.”

Should the committee be alarmed by that statement?

Okay. They will, I hope, be addressed.

Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have noted that the legislation has potential cost implications for their organisations that are not reflected in the FM, but they did not give any indication of their scale. What engagement was done with Police Scotland, for example? Why did it not feel that it could elaborate on what the potential costs might be?