Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I was not asking you to reflect on the individuals concerned.

If we are going to ensure that this does not happen again and that the processes that are being put in place are much more robust, it is surely important to understand exactly what went wrong, not just in the ferries situation but in relation to the other issues to which Mr Johnson has referred. Audit Scotland has been on this trail for quite some time, saying that there is not enough transparency in the Scottish Government.

One of our regrets as a committee is that we did not interview your predecessor, and I hope that you can understand why we wanted to. We wanted to get to the hard facts about why the ferries situation happened—not the implications of what has happened since, but why it happened then. I hope that you can understand that a very important part of moving forward is having a good-quality understanding of why documentation was missing and of what can be done to ensure that that never happens again. Do you accept that?

I asked the question because, if we measure forecasting over a period of time, some countries appear to my mind to be more accurate, shall we say, than others. I am interested to know why that is. However, that is perhaps for another day.

One of the challenges that this committee comes across, as do many policy makers in Scotland, is that we are presented with two sets of forecasting—namely, that of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and that of the Office for Budget Responsibility—and there is a time lag between them, which can complicate things. When we get one set of statistics, other things can happen by the time we get the next set. Will you tell us a bit about how you intend to address that issue?

Thank you.

On exactly that point, the roles of the two committees are different. You are absolutely right that the committee that investigated the issues surrounding the extensive problems before the 2021 election had a specific role. We have a different role, which is about how public administration is made accountable. For the committee to scrutinise ministers such as yourself, it would have been useful for us to hear from the horse’s mouth, as it were, exactly what some of the perceived challenges were. That is nothing to do with the events and what went on, which was for the other committee to question. Rather, it is about what structures could be improved. Do you accept that that issue has been difficult for us, as we have not been able to hear the evidence on that?

The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the fact that the committee requested the presence of the former permanent secretary and was very disappointed that that request was declined. I know that the Deputy First Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that, but it has raised two issues for the committee.

First, this Parliament has, as yet, not been able to scrutinise the previous permanent secretary about the issues that he felt had caused difficulties in the administration process. Secondly, it raised a concern about the accountability of the permanent secretary, whomever he or she may be, to not only the Scottish Government but to Parliament.

I raise those points because they are extremely important in the context of public scrutiny. We wanted answers to specific questions that were nothing to do with the events of the difficult trials that had taken place but were about what procedures might be organised better. However, we have not been able to question and get that evidence from that person, who was right on the front line.

Do you accept that that is a problem for the committee? How do you think a permanent secretary should be accountable to Parliament?

Thank you for that, but I just make the point that the scrutiny is the important thing. That is what this committee’s role is about, I think.

Thank you. That is helpful, but I still think that there are two issues. You are quite right that the first of those is what will happen with accountability and ensuring that the process is as strong as it possibly can be. The previous permanent secretary was very much involved at the time when there were obviously serious issues, so given her non-appearance before the committee, the committee’s problem is that we have not been able to get some of that feedback, so it is much more difficult for us to scrutinise what the best way forward should be and to ask ministers about that.

You are absolutely right that you have been up front about what is happening. However, do you accept that our work has been slightly compromised by the fact that it has been difficult for us to find out in a public committee session exactly what went on in the processes and how they could have been run better?

Ms Henderson, you said in your opening remarks that there were people on the Leaders Forum who operate the national performance framework and who felt that that was a good thing to do, even if nobody asked them about it. If people are not being asked about it, does something need to happen to ensure that the public are more aware of the framework and what it means? If so, how would you do that? I do not think that people in the street would have a clue what the national performance framework was if you asked them.

I have a final point on the structures of the Parliament and enhancing scrutiny. Is there a case to be made, as has been made in several years past in the Parliament, that a finance bill accompanying the budget process would be helpful? That would give more and enhanced opportunities to scrutinise exactly where money has gone and how well it has been spent?

That is a very interesting point. Would any move towards longer-term spending—moving from a one-year budget to, potentially, a three-year budget—enhance our ability to scrutinise a bit better the effectiveness of spending in different areas? Let us be honest: this is all about money. Would that help?