Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Official Report 629KB pdf

---

Public Administration in the Scottish Government

We will get back under way now, because we are over our time—apologies to the permanent secretary and his officials.

The second item on our agenda is an evidence session with Joe Griffin, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, on issues relating to public administration in the Government. Mr Griffin is joined by Scottish Government officials Lesley Fraser, director general corporate, and—once again this morning—Richard McCallum, director of public spending. I welcome you all to the meeting, and I invite Mr Griffin to make a short opening statement. Good morning, Mr Griffin.

Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to engage with the committee to discuss matters relating to public administration. As I approach my first full year in the role and, more importantly, the end of the current parliamentary session, there are a few key areas that I would like to highlight.

My executive team and I remain strongly focused on reforming our public services and delivering effectively for people and communities around the country. As a civil service, we work always in the service of Scotland. I am grateful to the exceptional civil servants I see every day, who work together and with partners to improve lives.

However, we must embrace change. The Scottish Government must lead the way on public service reform by working smarter, embracing innovation and removing duplication in order to build a more sustainable, high-quality public sector.

We are working to reduce our workforce over the years to 2030, responding to operating cost reductions and taking the opportunity to set longer-term strategy to shape our organisation for the future. We need a culture that is focused relentlessly on getting things done and on working as a team across boundaries. We need to innovate in a digital age and harness the best of what is available in pursuit of improved outcomes. We need to play to our strengths, recognising that what is most effective may sometimes be hidden in plain sight.

At an executive team level, I have reduced the number of directors general and have brought in new expertise and experience to serve us well in the period ahead, ensuring the highest standards of governance, accountability, financial management and transparency. We meet regularly, as a senior team and with the Cabinet, to drive delivery in line with the Government’s programme.

The scale of the fiscal challenge is clear, and action is essential to address the projected gaps of £2.6 billion in resource funding and £2.1 billion in capital funding by 2029-30. It is vital that we take a long-term view. Last year, the Government published its medium-term financial strategy, its first fiscal sustainability delivery plan and the public service reform strategy, providing a clear framework for the changes that are required across the public sector, including in relation to workforce, health and social care reform, social security, tax and growth.

We are reforming the national performance framework, setting the vision for the kind of Scotland that we would like to see and providing the direction for better public services. Wider engagement on the proposals is under way up to the pre-election period, and it will then be for the next Cabinet to agree it and secure buy-in from the new Parliament. How the national performance framework is put into action is critical.

The civil service is preparing well for the Scottish Parliament election in May. Pre-election access for Opposition parties is well under way. This is an important moment in our democratic process, and we stand ready to support Government formation and to provide strong, strategic advice to the incoming Administration, to enable it to deliver its policy priorities in what will continue to be a tough fiscal environment.

I am committed to openness and transparency, and we continue to work hard to enable democratic scrutiny and sustain strong performance across freedom of information requests amid significantly rising volumes.

I would like to take this opportunity, as this session of Parliament draws to a close, to put on record my thanks to the committee for its valuable and varied body of work, ranging from the cost-effectiveness of public inquiries to the national performance framework to detailed budget scrutiny and effective Scottish Government decision making, all of which will continue to inform good government in Scotland in the years ahead.

I look forward to your questions and welcome the committee’s scrutiny.

10:45

Thank you for those kind comments and, indeed, for your opening statement, which was very helpful.

When you were previously at committee, nine months ago, you were asked about the Scottish Government’s plans to reduce the civil service workforce, and you said that you did not have a figure for its optimal size. You had been in post only a relatively short time, so, nine months later, I wonder whether you now have an optimal size for the civil service.

We have a target that ministers have announced for us collectively, as part of the public service reform initiative: a 20 per cent reduction in full‑time‑equivalent headcount by 2030. It will be important to optimise our ability to work effectively as an organisation of that size by considering a detailed range of matters, including the scale and scope of the programme that we are being asked to deliver, and to play in other aspects around improvement, such as how we use digital technology and how we think about management layers and other factors. I can speak more to those matters as the morning unfolds.

That is not quite the same as the optimal size. As you will appreciate, that is essentially the Government saying that it wants a 20 per cent reduction. Do you have a view on what the optimal size is? If I assume that you achieve the target, we could be in a situation in which the Government of the day—whatever its colour—says, “You’ve achieved a 20 per cent reduction over the past five years, so maybe we should look at a reduction of X percentage over the next five years,” or whatever the target happens to be. Is there a size of workforce at which you think that you can optimise delivery of the services that you provide for us all?

I have reflected a fair bit on our exchanges the last time, and I appreciate that I was reluctant to give a figure as an abstract proposition. Having reflected on that, I am still a little reluctant to do so, because I feel that a lot of variables are in play. It depends on the programme that you are being asked to deliver, fundamentally. Since the onset of devolution, the picture has been dynamic, with more powers coming into the Scottish Government and, in the past few years, a lot of volatility in terms of public policy.

If you were to really put me on the spot—

I certainly intend to.

I appreciate that that goes with the territory, convener.

If I look at the general size of the civil service before the Covid pandemic, for example, that feels like a reasonable figure to aim for. However, it is still too abstract a proposition for me. I would want to relate it to the programme that we are being asked to deliver.

That is a really fair response, because things are changing all the time. No one expects you to give a figure of 7,922 or whatever it happens to be. However, I am looking for parameters.

If we cannot have an optimal figure, as there may be changes as things progress and other things happen—“Events, dear boy, events”—what is the minimum number that the civil service needs in order to function? Is that another way of looking at it, assuming that where we are is broadly where we stay in terms of the delivery of policy and priorities?

Again, what has driven growth in recent years—and over the devolution period—is a combination of additional powers coming into the Government and a degree of crisis response. As for where we are now, we also recognise that, if you really want to restrict recruitment, you may need to take some quite hard-edged measures. I can speak more about that as the morning unfolds. We have just announced a recruitment freeze, for example, which, it occurs to me, is something that is necessary at this time.

Setting aside the sense of reactivity and volatility that we have, we reached a point of maturity around the time of Covid, with the addition of new powers from the Smith commission and the Scotland Act 2016, for example. As I said, that probably feels like a minimum viable product along the lines that you are suggesting. I would not want to suggest that this is a scientific approach, but I am trying to be as helpful as I can be.

I am struggling to get numbers here. Let us just change tack a little bit.

The recruitment freeze seems to go from one extreme to the other. Surely there are specialists within your team who might decide to leave for whatever reason—they might become unwell and have to leave, or whatever. If you have a recruitment freeze, is that not a bit extreme? There might be occasions when you simply need to replace certain individuals. I am looking at Lesley Fraser and Richard McCallum, on either side of you, for example. I am sure that you have succession planning, but it does not always work out.

It is not a total freeze in the sense that there are some roles that, as you suggest, are absolutely critical, including to the carrying out of statutory duties—for example, in relation to some of our marine or agricultural responsibilities. However, with that caveat, it is as close to a recruitment freeze as we can muster.

The advantage of the freeze is that it gives us a degree of certainty. Our natural attrition rate is around 6 per cent a year. With a recruitment freeze in place, if you maintain that over a year and attrition stays at the current rate, you can predict with reasonable certainty, allowing for a couple of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier, that you will meet your target.

As of now, there are no other tools available to us. You either restrict who comes in or you have some agency, in some way, over who goes out, and we do not have that at the moment. We are relying on natural attrition and people’s voluntary decisions to retire or leave the organisation. There are other ways of doing it, but, as things stand, we are taking that approach. A recruitment freeze gives us a degree of certainty that we can continue to meet our targets as we move through the next financial year.

It used to be called wastage—attrition is not really much better, is it? There is a 6 per cent attrition rate, and the Scottish Government is looking for a cost reduction of around 4 per cent a year. Where are we on that? On 7 November, the cabinet secretary confirmed that annualised Scottish Government costs will reduce by approximately £1 billion, which is 20 per cent of costs. As I said, that is about 4 per cent a year. Where are we on that? Are we on track?

We are on track. The latest figure was published back in September. At that point, we were looking at a 1.6 per cent reduction. The management information that I have suggests that we are on track to be there or thereabouts at the end of March to meet the 4 per cent target for this financial year.

While we are talking about being on track, the Scottish Government has sharpened delivery discipline with the creation of a delivery unit. The programme for government is supported by a dashboard that shows whether we are on track. Where are we on that dashboard?

That is largely positive.

“Largely” could be 51 per cent or 95 per cent.

It is more like 80 per cent than 50 per cent. I am not sure that I have the specific figure in front of me, but I am happy to write to the committee.

Part of the purpose of creating the unit was to be able to track the deliverability of commitments in the programme for government and to improve the capability of the Scottish Government. I mentioned in my opening remarks the importance of getting things done, and that unit has been able to pull together a range of different methodologies that the Government has used over the years, including ideas from the Michael Barber review, improvement methodology and programme and project management. The unit also has a role in improving the capability across the organisation so that we can serve Government most effectively by translating commitments into action and delivery.

I will happily write to the committee with a specific figure for where we are today with the programme for government commitments.

In the media, it has been reported quite extensively that there has been resistance among some civil servants to returning to the office for two days a week, which was a target that you set nine months ago for October last year. You said that you are now going through a process of ensuring that people will be together from October. Where are we with that? Are there any proposals to increase the target of two days a week to three days a week, or are you resting on two days?

We have been running that policy since October, and I am pleased that our data on building access in relation to building capacity has increased quite significantly for some buildings in particular. For example, in February 2025, St Andrew’s house in Edinburgh, which is generally regarded as a flagship Scottish Government building, had a 34 per cent building occupancy rate. In February 2026, that was up to 60 per cent. At Atlantic Quay in Glasgow, occupancy is up from 57 per cent in February 2025 to 68 per cent in February 2026. In some of the other buildings—for full disclosure—the increases are less significant, although some of that is a result of people choosing to work in St Andrews house, for example. We are moving on this, and there has been a palpable change in the atmosphere and the vibrancy—

Everyone was expected to do two days a week. Where are we with that? Is it 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent of people who are doing that?

This is the data that we are using. We are not monitoring individuals as part of the policy—

How can we tell what percentage of the workforce is actually following the two-day thing? It is apples and oranges. I am pretty sure that, when you gave evidence to the committee previously, you talked about people having to do two days a week, not about the capacity of buildings.

That is the data set that we have. You referred to anxiety among some colleagues about a change in the policy. We wanted, therefore, to proceed as best we could in agreement with the unions, and part of the nature of that agreement was that we would not be monitoring individuals. The policy is not, in its origin, a punitive approach—it does not speak to distrust of people who are working hard. We think that it is positive, and we want to encourage people to be present with their colleagues and to work with stakeholders externally, so we have not—

Sorry—we are talking about only two days out of a five-day working week. Why is coming into the office so onerous? Pre-pandemic, everybody worked in the office, did they not? It was just taken for granted. That is where you worked—you turned up Monday to Friday and did your shift, and then you went up the road. Now, suddenly, a few years later, we are trying to get folk to do for two days a week what they normally did for five days, sometimes for many years. That seems extraordinary to me—it really does.

I would have thought that you would, indeed, be monitoring the policy to see whether some departments have 100 per cent of people coming back for two days a week—or more, one would hope. In other departments, if the percentage was lower, or significantly lower, you would want to look at why that was not happening and at the issues that might be preventing people from returning to work.

Do people not like working with their colleagues—the banter and all that kind of thing? It is not healthy to sit in your house all the time, working. For me, the fridge would be the big problem because I would be raiding it every 10 minutes. That is not a flippant remark—it is actually true. Surely working is about the camaraderie and a shared vision. Not everything can be done on a computer or by phone. I am struggling to understand what is going on here.

In large measure, I completely agree with you. Personally, I work in the office or with stakeholders every single day. I do that for all the reasons that you give, and I always have done throughout my career. All the reasons that you have given are strong arguments for the policy that we introduced a number of years after Covid, when that decision was not taken. As I said, we wanted to proceed in a way that respected the partnership with our colleagues in the unions, and that ultimately led to some compromises on the basis on which we were going to proceed.

Fundamentally, we need to get the value from that arrangement, so we may review it with the incoming Government after May. As things stand, both the motivation and the way of monitoring the arrangements have been agreed in partnership, and we continue to make the kind of arguments that you have made. Nevertheless, the uplifts in building occupancy rates that we are talking about are not trivial.

Okay. I am sure that other members will want to explore that further.

Why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of Scottish Government communications staff over the past decade?

I do not have the answer to that one. Lesley, do you?

No, I do not have those figures in front of me. I am not aware that the numbers have increased in recent years.

I will give you some figures. The budget for Scottish Government communications staff increased from £2.256 million in 2013-14 to £4.498 million in 2024-25. Allowing for inflation, that is about 30 per cent higher than during the Covid pandemic. There are now 17 special advisers—six more than there were 10 years ago. Why is that necessary?

The special advisers are appointed directly by the First Minister. The First Minister makes a choice about the number, and the skills, of special advisers that would be helpful for him and his ministerial colleagues. Clearly, they are covering a very broad range of activity within Government and, as the permanent secretary has just said, that has increased over the period that you set out.

11:00

Social security has been devolved, so I understand that there might be a need for one or two more advisers. However, it seems as though there is a higher number than under previous First Ministers in previous Administrations. Is that not the case? It just seems a bit unnecessary.

Generally, the Scottish Government has matured and increased its range of powers and responsibilities over the entire period of devolution, including over the past decade.

If the civil service is expected to reduce to an optimal size, should not the number of special advisers also reduce accordingly?

I am sure that, following the election, the First Minister who is elected will take a look at what is required, in terms of both the ministerial offices that are needed and special adviser support. Special advisers play a valuable role for civil servants and ministers in being able to translate between the political world and the impartial and objective world that civil servants work in.

Okay, thanks. I am going to make myself popular, am I not?

Let us look at something else. The committee has expressed concern in relation to the baselining of all routine in-year transfers. I am talking specifically about comparing the autumn budget revision figures to the draft budget. Tremendous progress has been made over the years on the quality of data that we are given for the spring and autumn budget revisions. There used to be a couple of dozen pages, but now we get big tomes of 150 pages that are full of detail, which is great. A lot of work has been done to align budgets with the ABR, so that we can see what is being spent and where the draft budget will take us with the most recently published figures.

However, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has pointed out that around £610 million is not routinely baselined. You have gone a long way towards a more transparent presentation of the figures, but surely consistency to ensure that all the figures are presented in that way would be much more beneficial.

We do not have any theoretical reason to object to that. As I said, we often operate in a volatile and reactive environment. In the previous session with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, there was an exchange about the chancellor’s statement last week and the implications of that for the Scottish Government budget. You alluded to the progress that we have made on transparency. We will continue doing that to the best of our ability, but having flexibility is useful in an environment in which we cannot entirely control our revenue. We are operating in a flexible fiscal environment.

I do not know whether Richard McCallum wants to add anything, but there is no doctrinal opposition to trying to improve transparency as best we can.

I have another question before Richard comes in. Is the aim to ensure that there is alignment perhaps next year or the year after, so that we have full transparency? You are making a lot of progress, so it seems disappointing that it is not being done across the board.

From my perspective, we want to be as transparent as possible. To the extent that there are exceptions to that, they should be exceptions, but I want us to continue that progress.

Richard has been more closely involved in the issue.

In 2024-25, just under £1 billion was baselined. There was another £500 million in 2025-26 and then nearly £800 million has been baselined in the 2026-27 budget. As you say, convener, our intention is to push on with that for the budget next time. There are times when ABR and SBR transfers are appropriate, particularly if those are around demand-led budgets in which the numbers can flex, or if new money is allocated or there is potentially growing money.

There will always be exceptions that we have to factor in, but I know that the committee has been clear in its expectations on transparency. For the successor committee after the election, we are certainly keen to try to make the process as transparent and clear as possible.

I could say more about that, but I appreciate what you have said.

This is my final point. When the committee went to Lithuania, we were impressed by the Lithuania 2050 approach, which is a national vision for the future, with a parliamentary committee of all parties monitoring progress towards achieving that vision of where they want that country to be in 2050. It has all-party buy-in. We understand that Scottish Government officials have since met officials from the Lithuanian Government, and the Scottish Government has committed to giving

“full consideration to any applicable lessons from the Lithuania 2050 approach and other international good practice.”

Given the fact that the SFC continues to talk about the impact of sustainability, and that you, Joe, as the permanent secretary, have talked about the fiscal gap in capital and resource in the next few years, is there a need for a similar committee in Scotland, or for one of the Parliament’s committees to have a remit that includes a focus on long-term fiscal sustainability so that we can, as has been said, look at international good practice and deliver long-term sustainability of not only our finances but the delivery of the services that depend on those finances?

That is an interesting question. It is for the Parliament to decide its committee make-up. I was genuine in my opening remarks about the value that this committee has delivered in respect of finance and public administration. You have my word, as one of the customers of the committee’s work, that we follow your output.

Your specific point about longer-term thinking relates to how we are trying to reform the national performance framework, which I am happy to talk more about, and ensure that it is in a more useful form that has greater utility when it comes to making strategic choices, including on long-term fiscal direction. We have also revived some of the futures work within Government, and a report on future trends for Scotland was published on 18 June last year. I also note that the Scotland 50 group is emerging in civic Scotland, and that looks interesting to me. I have been around long enough to remember the work that the Parliament did on futures in an earlier session.

All of this is grist to the mill. The different perspectives coming out of the legislature, which bring with them an appropriate degree of scrutiny of and challenge to the executive, are important. That is a welcome and necessary tension, and capacity within the Government is also good. Crucially, we can make connections, whether with Lithuania or other countries. For example, we have been speaking to Singapore recently about its experience of civil service reform.

My answer to your question is therefore yes, that is all useful and valuable stuff that we follow and would look to incorporate into our thinking.

So many countries are facing the same issues that we are, such as the demographic challenge, in a rapidly changing world.

Colleagues are keen to come in. The first will be Michelle Thomson, followed by Craig Hoy.

Good morning. I want to follow up on what the convener was asking about in relation to the public sector reform programme. To be a success, it will require a culture change in the leadership team. Can you outline what that means to you and how confident you are that you can deliver it?

On the leadership team, I am missing a number of great colleagues who have retired, and a number of others have announced their imminent retirement. However, as permanent secretary, that gives me the opportunity to bring into that team talented people with different perspectives and that is what I have done by way of recruitment. For example, the director general net zero, Dr Andy Kerr, brings deep expertise from the world of climate change and climate change financing, international work and knowledge transfer, and an entrepreneurial track record. Therefore, moving into the next session of Parliament, the first thing to say about the leadership team is that, in large measure, it will comprise a different set of people, which will give us an opportunity to look at things differently. We have also worked on how we work together. We have reduced the amount of time spent in meetings, shortened the papers, reduced some of the conversational aspects of our meetings and got much more into the specificity of the actions that we need to take, probably with more of an emphasis on running the organisation than wider policy discussions, although policy also comes into it.

On the confidence point, it is really important to have some clear propositions for the incoming Administration in May on what you might see as some of the big‑ticket items, and I have been gratified by the work that has been done. In a document that was published alongside the budget, each of the portfolios set out a number of efficiencies and reforms that can be made now, which collectively total £1.5 billion. We will need to do much more than that on an annual and recurring basis, so I have asked each DG to be ready for the incoming Administration with what I have described as the rough equivalent of police and fire reform in their sector, because that is the scale of savings that we will need to make. Colleagues have not been working on those matters in a vacuum; they have also been discussing them with wider sectors. Therefore, we will ready for the incoming Administration, should it wish to pursue the same direction.

The production of the initial set of reforms and the fact that we are working on and thinking about some big‑ticket items give me confidence. Then we have the burning platform, which is the analysis of the public finances and so on. For those reasons, as well as the fact that we will have a new team of people who are thinking about those issues, we will be in decent shape, and we will see who the electorate sends to us to take that forward.

I hope that you are successful in achieving the mooted £1.5 billion saving, because it certainly shows the audacity to pursue change that I want to see. However, I notice that you have not mentioned anything more about risk appetite or cognitive diversity in your senior leadership team. One of the civil service’s greatest strengths has been its attitude to risk, but it could also be one of its greatest weaknesses, given some of the challenges that are coming out of left field—you have mentioned some of them already—such as climate change and artificial intelligence. Are you consciously considering those issues as part of any culture change that will enable delivery?

I will quote a former minister, who I shall keep anonymous for these purposes, who was asked what they thought about risk taking in the civil service, and they said that they were very much in favour of it as long as it worked. Risk taking is not always like that, because you need to have a bit of an appetite for some things not being successful. Ultimately, you set risk in partnership with your elected politicians, and you must have regard to their political risk appetite. Often, that relates to specific propositions rather than a general posture.

Your point about cognitive diversity was well made. In any team, you want to see a diversity of thought. You definitely want a sense of people being able to challenge one another and provide fearless advice to ministers that is clear, honest and objective. One of the advantages of being able to recruit as intensively as I have over the past few months is that we get really good data from that process. We have really good psychometric profiles of people that show their preferences, and that allows me, with each appointment, to think first and foremost about the individual but also to have regard to the overall team dynamic and to make sure that we build a team that is balanced in terms of gender, for example, and cognitive diversity. I have had that opportunity, and I feel good about the progress that we are making.

I will carry on because I want to cover a couple of themes, the next of which is transparency. You are accountable for ensuring transparency in the civil service, as well as for acting personally and making decisions transparently. You will be aware of increasing concerns about transparency. Yesterday, The Scotsman’s Catriona Stewart wrote an article that noted that the UK Government had answered an FOI request in full but that the Scottish Government had redacted an identical request entirely, bar the words “Dear Andrew”. I understand the difference between the various legislative regimes and acts, but do you understand that the optics are poor?

My substantive point is about the Scottish Information Commissioner. You will have seen his letter, in which he made three points: more information was redacted than he expected in the delayed 281/2025 release; he has not yet received a response to his letter of 2 February, which was 36 days ago; and the disjointed and “chaotic nature” of Scottish Government responses is troubling and merits further investigations in order to ascertain whether he needs to open a “third intervention”, which would this time be at the Scottish Government’s expense. What on earth is going on?

I understand that critique. We read the commentary. We are alive to perceptions that the Government’s performance has improved and that that has been sustained over a period of time in terms of the number of FOIs—

11:15

Yes, but I am talking specifically, rather than generally. Specifically, it is unheard of for the Scottish Information Commissioner to comment using terms such as “disjointed” and “chaotic”. He is talking directly. There have been a variety of threads, as you know, on the issue of FOI requests around the Hamilton inquiry, but what the commissioner has said is a particularly strong way of expressing things, and he is expressing his own dealings with the situation. I am trying to get a sense of how concerned you are and what you are going to do about it, because it is fundamentally affecting trust in the Scottish Government.

I absolutely understand the critique, Ms Thomson. I am meeting the commissioner tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock, and we will discuss these matters in full. At their heart is a particular set of individual FOI requests—north of around 70 of them—relating to James Hamilton’s report on the former First Minister. That has involved a complex set of interactions and a very large number of documents. We have made some mistakes during the course of that. Some of those were a result of human error in the complex environment that we are dealing with. I will discuss the situation in full with the commissioner. I hope that, at the very least, I am able to reassure him about our intent and about the processes that we followed, as we have approached these things in good faith. Lesley Fraser might have something to add to that.

Before Lesley comes in, I want to say that am pleased to hear that you are meeting the Information Commissioner tomorrow morning. However, that letter was sent on 2 February, which was 36 days ago. You are telling me that you are mindful of the matter, and we all understand the issues around complexity, in fairness, but that is a very evident example—it is 36 days on from a letter being sent. Given the amount of interest in the issue and how on point the Information Commissioner has been, what on earth is the reason that 36 days have gone by and there is still no reply?

If you do not mind, I will ask Lesley to give you a specific answer to that question.

I think that the reason is the level of complexity around the questions that the commissioner is, rightly, asking us. The permanent secretary and the commissioner will have the opportunity to discuss the issues more fully tomorrow, but, as the committee will be aware, there are various constraints around the information that is being investigated where transparency is being sought. Handling that in an appropriate way, given those constraints, really is complex, not just in terms of legality but in terms of information handling and the different issues that are at play. I hope and expect that the discussion tomorrow will be very helpful.

Confidence in transparency is generally not helped by a lack of confidence in someone obeying the rule of law. It is nearly a year since the Supreme Court judgment on 16 April 2025 in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers. Whether it is raised in the debating chamber or a committee, the official Scottish Government line—I am paraphrasing—is “We are working hard to obey the law”, which is another way of saying “We are still currently breaking it”. That strikes me as somewhat Trumpian. It was only yesterday that LGBT Youth Scotland—which is, of course, funded by the Scottish Government—put out guidance contrary to the Supreme Court ruling in that it did not comply with the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 or the Equality Act 2010. What on earth is going on? Why can the Scottish Government not obey the law?

We have done a number of things since we last had an exchange on these matters, Ms Thomson. A senior-level group is co-ordinating our response and looking at the specificities of how we need to respond in each sector. I can run through quickly a number of the actions that we have taken, if that would be helpful.

What you are telling me is largely the same holding response that I got last time. You are saying, “We are doing lots of stuff”, but I have no sight of said lots of stuff. As I see it, this is a matter of the rule of law, and I am left to wonder why we are not obeying the rule of law.

In that case, I had better list some of the actions that we have taken, as I think that that will explain how we are meeting the rule of law.

We have updated our guidance for the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, and we have amended the public appointments recruitment process for public bodies that are subject to the 2018 act with regard to seeking and using biological sex at birth data. We have moved to an interim trans and non-binary inclusion policy for Scottish Government staff, removing a line regarding facilities use while we develop new policy and guidance in consultation with trade unions, and we have conducted an initial review of facilities across the Scottish Government estate, with a more detailed review now under way to ensure that our provision meets the needs of staff and other requirements.

I have more that I could say, but I do not want to abuse the committee’s time by going through all of it. I am happy to write to you to ensure that it is all on the record.

In summary, what I am telling you is that we have taken actions specific to the sectors where we have deemed it possible, and necessary, to deploy the law. As you know, we are still waiting for the formal adoption of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance, which sits—

Clearly, though, you do not need to wait for that. That has been made very clear.

I think that it is important to put on record that we have taken a number of actions. This is territory where you are dealing with guidance and interpreting the legislation in specific ways. The actions might sound somewhat ethereal, perhaps, but that is the nature of the actions that the judgment requires us to take.

One gets the impression of being dragged, kicking and screaming, to do this, no?

If that is your impression, that is your impression. I can speak only to the work that I have seen my colleagues do and the list of actions that we have taken. The Government has been clear from the outset that we respect the judgment. Again, we are navigating a degree of complexity here, but a series of concrete measures have been taken.

I am aware, because it is in the public realm via an FOI, that those groups with whom you have consulted in developing this guidance have only—I am reluctant to characterise the debate in this way—been on one side of it. In other words, they are groups that give voice to the concerns of trans groups. Do you not find it the very definition of madness only to consult one side and not to consult with women’s groups—and, critically, For Women Scotland, which won the court case—in developing this guidance?

Forgive me, but I am not sighted on the details of those different consultations. Lesley, do you want to come in on that?

I can speak to the consultations that we have been holding in the Scottish Government in relation to our own employer policies. For example, we have held listening circles with different groups of staff to hear different perspectives, and we particularly welcome that diversity of input and perspective. We have also consulted on the facilities that we have available for staff use in the Scottish Government’s 60-plus buildings up and down the country. Colleagues can input in the knowledge that we are listening, and we will devise and take actions on the basis of that widespread consultation and input.

What I am referring to, just so you have it for your records in case you want to follow it up, is a letter from For Women Scotland dated 3 March, which references specifically—and I quote—

“extensive engagement with trans organisations”

as well as

“additional roundtable meetings between Scottish Ministers and the same six trans groups”.

There has been only one meeting between For Women Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and of course, none between the First Minister and the group.

I am asking about that, because if you are going to deliver a change that adheres to the law and which has been accepted so that everyone can move forward with clarity and together—because that is what everyone wants; everyone wants people’s rights to be respected—how on earth are you going to do that when you talk to only one group? What is stopping any of you meeting For Women Scotland, given that that case cost the Scottish Government £780,000?

I will happily look into that. In relation to the 3 March letter, I completely understand the point that you are making on the specificity of For Women Scotland. I do not know the ins and outs of what meetings have happened or not happened. For me personally, I have engaged with a range of different staff groups—Lesley Fraser mentioned that earlier—and I have listened to people who take that gender-critical position, as it is sometimes called. I thought that it was important for me to be sensitised to all aspects of the argument, because I completely agree with you that we have to move forward on the basis of dialogue and getting to a point of shared understanding. I understand your point. Forgive me if I do not have the details in front of me. I assure you that I will look into it.

What assessment are you making in relation to further court cases coming forward? Obviously, we have a court case in train at the moment in relation to men in women’s prisons, but, as I understand it, other court cases are being developed. There was a section 35 order in relation to gender recognition, and the costs for that are about £1.2 million, plus there is the Sandie Peggie case, which has cost about £400,000 so far. Other court cases will come forward while this issue is not addressed. Are you making an assessment of the potential costs, given the critical public finance constraints?

The Government is looking to develop the specific position that we need to be in as regards every individual sector. That is the purpose of the group. Of course, lawyers are involved in that. It is important that we reach the decision that we think is right, and that we do not sit here thinking, “Well, that may trigger legal action here or there, and the sum total of the cost of that potential set of circumstances is X or Y.” The evidence goes to ministers to allow them to make a decision based on the best advice of how we need to proceed.

But do you not think that you should consider that? This is all costing the public purse. As I think I have suggested before, if this was your money, I bet you would not be doing this, but this is public money. People are looking at this and going, “Well, this is costing the public purse a fortune,” and we are still not obeying the law. It seems quite incredible.

We have taken a number of measures, as I described earlier, to make sure that we are in compliance with the law. I think that the Government is right to adopt the position that it thinks we should be in, in respect of the different sectors, informed by all the different aspects. It is a highly litigious environment. I think that it would be very difficult to make an assessment. In a way, you are almost suggesting that the Government should not reach the position that it thinks is the right position, because of the possible risk of legal action.

Actually, what I am suggesting is that none of this would have happened if the Government had been able to take cognisance of balancing rights and not make it about competing rights and, of course, critically, if the Government had not allowed the wholesale roll-out of self-identification to public sector organisations, which was never part of the law, and that has been absolutely confirmed. Therefore, the failure to engage with one entire side of the debate seems utter madness, because this is going to carry on.

I will follow up your point about engagement. As I said, I have done that at a personal level. There is a specific point that you make about For Women Scotland, and I will make an assessment generally about the equity of engagement. I understand the point.

Okay. Thank you.

It seems to me, as a simple soul, that the Scottish Government was quick to take on board the Supreme Court’s view on the legality of an independence referendum, but this seems to be dragging out for what has been, I think, 11 months already.

Lesley, can I ask you, what is a listening circle? It is not something that I have come across in all my many years.

It is perhaps just the latest way of describing some of the ways in which we can engage with our colleagues. As Ms Thomson suggested, it is very much about allowing people to bring their experience, insights and concerns into a safe space.

What do you mean by a “safe space”? What do you mean by the word “safe” there? It is a kind of pejorative term, really. Is there somebody outside with a sharp knife, perhaps, and you put them into that space? That is probably a simplistic way of putting it, but, to me, the use of that terminology seems a bit over the top.

I am not sure that it is over the top, convener. Again, from the discussions that I have had, people feel very strongly about this issue and—again, to be reductionist—people often relate how they approach the issue, on both sides of the argument, in some instances, to quite traumatic personal experience. It is one of the things that I have been sensitised to in the course of my conversations. How you set up such conversations, particularly if people have differing perspectives, is very important. I would say that the word “safe” is probably not overplayed here, when it comes to getting the right psychology so that people feel that they can express themselves, be listened to with respect, and potentially not have to go through things that have previously traumatised them. With respect, I think that that is a legitimate way to approach such conversations.

11:30

Okay. Moving swiftly on, I call Craig Hoy, to be followed by Michael Marra.

Good morning, Mr Griffin. I am going take a slightly scattergun approach, because several issues have arisen this morning that I think merit a follow-up.

In relation to working from home, can you put on the record how you are actually monitoring, first of all, an individual civil servant’s working patterns, and, secondly, the collective working patterns of the civil service?

We are not monitoring individuals. Instead, there will be, at a management level, a sense of how the team is operating; each team has a team agreement, which sets down principles for how people are going to work together, and it would be noticeable if an individual within a team was not engaging with what the team had agreed. I would expect management conversations to ensue from that. However, there is no specific taking-a-register approach in the form of individual monitoring.

You have said that the usage of buildings has gone up quite significantly. Last September, usage of Victoria Quay was at 12.2 per cent. However, we could be talking about a small number of individuals attending five days a week. In other words, when you talk about progress from 12.2 per cent to 25 per cent, we could, hypothetically, be talking about the same number of people working more hours in the office. Do you have a total for the number of civil servants who are going into the office at all, and the total number who are not attending the office under any circumstances?

I think that we have data on individual logins in Scottish Government buildings. Do we have that, Lesley?

We do. Of course, our buildings are used by a number of public bodies as part of the single Scottish estate programme. We quite deliberately seek to maximise the use of our estate for the benefit of the wider public sector in Scotland.

However, we can see where people are logging in. There will be colleagues who will have logged into the Parliament to support me and my colleagues this morning, for example, or there will be a number of colleagues who will be out across rural Scotland on, for example, agricultural work, and we would not expect them to log in to one of our central belt locations at any point. There is a real diversity of roles within the Scottish Government, and the team agreements that the permanent secretary has referred to seek to capture that, allowing line managers to manage and monitor how people are using their two days a week, or more, either out with stakeholders or face to face with colleagues in the office.

I sense that, with these relatively simple questions that are being put to you, we are getting into listening circles again—there is a touch of wokery coming in.

I suppose that what I am asking is this: what would happen to a civil servant who chose not to go into the office and preferred to work from home instead? How many cases of disciplinary action have arisen as a result of that situation?

I am on record last time as having described such a situation and saying that that, in itself, would not trigger disciplinary measures.

It might be helpful to take a step back and look at how we have gone about this and the thinking behind it. There was a long period after Covid in which there was no real determined approach to get people back into the office or, indeed, working with stakeholders outwith the office. The executive team that I lead decided quite early on last year that we needed to change that, and for positive reasons. There was a positivity to many of the reasons; this was not intended as a punitive measure or as a way of checking up on people or ensuring that they were working. I know from my 30 years of professional life that people are capable of not working hard either at home or in an office—I do not think the setting has any intrinsic relationship to people’s work rate.

We also wanted to get into a discussion with the unions and reach an agreement with them about the basis on which we could move forward together. We reached an agreement that has led to certain constraints in how we have gone about this, including a lack of individual monitoring, which is something that unions felt strongly about. We could, at some future date, determine that we are not getting the benefits from in-office working and proceed without agreement with union colleagues, but that will trigger the kind of conflict that would be unhelpful. We need to make a range of changes to the organisation, such as reducing its size. I am sure that we will get into some of the different aspects of that but, for now, the judgment is that we need to work in partnership with the unions and that has led us to taking the approach that I sense a number of members of the committee are not comfortable with. I understand that, but I wanted to explain that there is a rounded, thought-through strategy here —

Mr Griffin, you are head of the civil service, so who is the boss in this? Is it you or is it the Scottish Government and the First Minister? Who decides what the policy is?

These are matters for the executive team. We discuss them with ministers, obviously, but ultimately they are decisions for the executive team to take.

So, at this point in time, the policy is that you expect civil servants to be in the office 40 per cent of the time. Is that correct?

Yes.

Do you know how many of the 9,000 core civil servants comply with that?

No. We do not have the data because not monitoring individuals on a taking-a-register basis was part of the terms of the agreement with the unions.

We are aware from freedom of information requests that there was a lively discussion between various members of the executive team of the civil service in Scotland about moving to a 60 per cent model. Gregor Irwin said that you should commit fully now to the 60 per cent model whereas Ms Fraser, I think, said that that decision should be taken in light of the evidence from the 40 per cent model. How can you assess whether to go from 40 per cent to 60 per cent if you are not capturing the data about the performance under the 40 per cent model?

I understand the shortcomings of the data, but it is not a data-free zone.

Well, you pretty much said that it is a data-free zone.

No, no. At the very least, the building occupancy statistics tell us something about trends, and they certainly tell us something about the numbers of people in the building compared to the capacity.

We do not have data that tells us other things. I will not claim any massive credit for it at this point, but early on in this internal exercise, I asked the team to think about a broader data set that can also tell us something about the qualitative nature of the work that people are doing. One thing I do not want to happen is that people merely come into an office and then engage in Teams calls all day. I do not see that that generates any sort of further benefit.

As for the executive team discussion, as I said earlier to Ms Thomson, it is perfectly healthy for people to take different approaches.

Are you scared of the public sector unions on this?

I am not scared. It is important for us to try to proceed in partnership and with agreement. We will need to realise a lot of change in the coming years, and there is a premium on doing that together. However, as I said, ultimately, if it is not going to deliver the benefits that we need to see, it is the executive’s prerogative to rethink that. However, as of now, we are in agreement and I think that things are improving.

On staff numbers, you have effectively said that, in large part, you are managing the future shape, form and function of the civil service through attrition—through who walks out of the door. Is that an efficient strategic way to approach something as important as redefining the civil service for the future challenges of tomorrow?

We are having a look at all the aspects that are involved in the development of the organisation to 2030. I have commissioned an experienced director to come offline and do some preparatory work ahead of the election on the different aspects that are in play. To give you a flavour of the different things that we are looking at, there are details around attendance management and where we are in respect of sick leave and intelligent automation. There are a number of aspects that can contribute to us being able to be successful as a smaller organisation.

As of now, there is no funding or proposal for a voluntary exit scheme and the commitment to no compulsory redundancies remains part of the current pay deal. Those are theoretically things that we could do and that have been deployed in Whitehall, for example, but they are not part of the mix at the moment. Should a new Administration be open to discussing those things with us, we will have the evidence and have carried out the thinking to support it.

Have you asked ministers to consider revisiting that, in the same way as has been done in the rest of the civil service in the UK? Would that be another tool that you could use?

I have not gone in to ask whether they would give us permission to do that. I have established in conversations with Mr McKee that, at this stage, there is no appetite to do either of those things.

Do you accept that, in a very dynamic employment market that is changing rapidly through innovations such as AI, people in the civil service who are in high demand could feel magnetism to move to the private sector, and that if you rely principally on natural attrition, there is a risk that you could be left with the wrong people—square pegs for round holes—to rise to the challenge that you have?

I am alive to the pros and cons of the approach that relies on natural attrition. We have been increasing capacity in a number of areas, and rightly so. For example, it is important for us to underpin our digital reforms, and there is a strong market effect in that area. We also use a professions lens. Part of the investment in our new underpinning operating system, Oracle, allows us to identify specific jobs within the 21 Government professions that are listed, which includes jobs in policy, operations, statistical, digital and so on.

As part of the consideration of the different options that could be available to a future Administration, we might factor in the pros and cons of where we are, but, as of now, I have to play the ball where it lies. The importance of realising the overall reductions and the budget reductions as part of public service reform—even if only to set an example—means that we have, with some reluctance, reached the position of instituting a recruitment freeze.

For the record, on balance, would you like to have the opportunity at least to explore voluntary redundancy packages and/or compulsory redundancy at this point in time? Would that help you in your role?

These matters are quite political and they are connected to a range of other factors. As I am a technocrat, it does not fall to me to advocate for or make decisions on such things in isolation. I am happy to say that I am alive to the pros and cons of the natural attrition route. Earlier, you asked about the ministerial-civil service interface. Ultimately, matters like these are very much for ministers.

I have two final questions, one of which relates to the contingent workforce. Mr McKee has said that there has been significant progress in reducing the contingent workforce, which, as of September 2025, was at 998 members and had been going down 20 per cent year on year. Has any of that reduction actually been displacement? There has been a rise in the employed civil service base in certain areas, particularly at the senior level. Has anybody left through the front door and then been recruited through the back door?

Do you mean on a revolving-door basis?

Yes—have there been any such individuals?

I am not sure that I would necessarily be aware of that happening. Lesley might be able to answer that.

We have replaced some contingent workers with lower-cost permanent staff, where there has been a strong value-for-money case for doing that. For example, if we have been running a managed contract with the private sector for several years, we might be able to do that work for half the cost by permanently employing—

Right, but there is no trend currently where out of 200 previously contingent people, maybe 50 of them are being employed in the civil service now, is there?

No. In fact, the management information that we are seeing now shows that the number of directly employed has also been coming down in recent months. The numbers of both contingent and directly employed workers are reducing at this point.

: The convener talked earlier about the appetite for public sector reform. The Scottish Government committed £30 million to the invest-to-save scheme last year. I noticed that only 24 applications to the scheme were from the core Scottish civil service directorates and Government agencies; there was only one from DG economy and three from DG corporate, and some of the DGs are not applying at all. What does it tell us about the appetite for public sector reform that, when your colleagues were effectively given free money to embark on the process, there was such a low uptake among them?

The invest-to-save fund is only one relatively small part of this workstream. I referred earlier to the commission that I put out to directors general to think about the big-ticket items, and there were specific limitations on the invest-to-save fund, so that it would only be used for single-year projects, not multiyear or capital projects. People may have felt that the work that they were undertaking on public service reform fitted elsewhere. A range of promising projects have come through as a result.

I am not too alarmed and I would not read a wider set of things into that regarding our posture or our readiness to engage in far-reaching reform.

11:45

Permanent secretary, on 24 June, you said to me:

“The core civil service number needs to come down”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 June 2025; c 28.]

Yes.

Has it come down since then?

Yes, it has. It is down by 1.6 per cent, according to the latest figures published in September 2025.

That is from the “Public Sector Employment in Scotland Statistics for 3rd Quarter 2025”.

I am not sure of the specific reference. The number is for core Scottish Government, so it is without reference to agencies. It is just the core.

In the statistics that were published that I refer to, for quarter 3, the devolved civil service head count was up by 1.5 per cent, or 420 people. There is a difference between those two sets of statistics.

People often talk about the devolved civil service in respect of the core plus a number of public bodies—those of closest proximity. That is how the consolidated accounts function. That figure that you are citing may well involve agencies, too. However, the information that I have—of some 8,700 or so—relates to core Government specifically.

The public corporations head count, which I recognise as being beyond the core, is up 6 per cent across the same period, to the third quarter last year. That is according to the most recent set of statistics to have been published.

I am curious as to the intent of the Scottish Government in bringing that number down more generally. You are not in direct control of that, as head of the civil service, but it is Government policy to do that.

Yes.

Do you think that we should have confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver that from your office?

Ultimately, it will be reflected in budgets: public bodies will have budgets that reflect the expectation of reductions. I think that there was an exchange in your earlier evidence session about back-office and front-office functions. I do not know the underpinnings of that 6 per cent figure, but it is possible that some of that relates to front-line services. That is more likely when we consider agencies and non-departmental public bodies, for example. However, I am confident, in so far as the budgets will reflect the reductions that we need to make. That is clearly set out in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan.

How many ministerial directions have you required in the past year?

I think that we are on a single one in the past year, on the purchase of Ardrossan harbour, which was just last week or the week before.

The convener is quite pleased about that one. Are there no ministerial directions in relation to the budget?

None in relation to the budget, no.

Are you concerned about the criticism from external organisations such as the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which feel that there has to be an emergency budget in the coming year, given how hard to the rails the Government is running its budget, the fact that it relies on one-off savings and what the IFS calls “heroic” assumptions around efficiencies in public services? That has to have been part of the conversations that you have been having with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, at least.

I did not follow all of the evidence session with the finance secretary, although Richard McCallum was physically here and may wish to comment. Of course we listen to and read respected commentators. In respect of the critique around transparency, we are aware of the sort of analysis that people undertake. In an earlier evidence session, we spoke about the consequentials flowing from the UK Government’s spring statement last year.

In coming up to the end of my first year as principal accountable officer at the Scottish Government, it strikes me that that element of uncertainty is always present. We are not able to say with any great confidence whether we will be up or down by £500 million as a result of decisions taken primarily at Westminster. That just makes it a more challenging exercise than it would be if we had complete control and could predict our revenue on a more predictable basis.

I am not sure that any Government anywhere can really do that.

Being the principal accountable officer, you are comfortable with a budget that runs that close to the rails, such that you are relying on those levels of savings in year to achieve a balanced paper budget that can come to Parliament. Do you think that that is a reasonable way to deal with the public finances in Scotland?

Balancing the budget is one of my most important responsibilities and it is unthinkable that we would not do that, because it is required under devolution. There has been no failure to do that at any point in the last quarter century and it will not happen on my watch either. You can take it from that answer that I judge that to be manageable.

There have been three emergency budgets in the past four years and you have had to rewrite the budget in year. I recognise some of the circumstances, but it is not true to say that the budget was balanced in those circumstances.

It means that actions were taken to ensure balance instead of having to signal a reserve claim to the Treasury, which would be the alternative if we ran out of options.

The alternative would be to take a different approach by having a budget that actually had some form of headroom to accommodate what might happen in year.

You are right that every Government is dealing with a dynamic environment. Over the past few years, we have seen inflation in the system, public pay negotiations and so on. There are always judgments to be made about the degree of headroom and the likelihood, or not, of further UK Government consequentials. It is a pretty dynamic and iterative process.

Where do you think we will be on pay in the final year of the current pay settlement?

The election that is coming up is pretty germane to all of that. We will also have to look at the economic and inflationary impacts of the current crisis in the Middle East.

You set out the pay policy, to which, as chief accounting officer, you were a signatory, and which allowed for 3 per cent per year. Nobody thinks that pay rises will be contained by that. It looks as if the settlement for core NHS staff will be 0.7 or 0.8 per cent in the third year. Do you think that that will hold? That must be a concern.

I will bring in Richard McCallum, who has been working closely on that. The election will clearly be a milestone. If a different Administration is returned and wishes to take a different approach to public sector pay, all bets will be off. If I understand your line of questioning, and to try to be helpful, I can answer by saying that that is based on an assumption of continuity. Perhaps Richard can speak to that.

It is based on the spending review figures set out by the UK Government and on what is deliverable.

I had this conversation with your predecessor. On 18 March 2025, when I asked him whether the pay policy was sustainable John-Paul Marks said that, in hindsight, it was not, and that

“It was optimistic—or unrealistic.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 March 2025; c 24.]

He was reflecting on the 3.3 per cent figure that had been set. I am trying to find out whether you, as the principal adviser to the Government, are actually looking at the context and setting out the challenge that we all anticipate is going to happen.

I understand your question better now. The sort of deals that have been concluded take you quite close to that 9 per cent envelope. Shona Robison is on record as saying that, if she had been continuing in her current role, she would have had to revisit that policy after the election. I think that that is right. Perhaps Richard can illuminate further.

I have a couple of things to say. The pay policy was set in December 2024, which was part of the previous budget round rather than the most recent one. A number of two-year pay deals were agreed, as was discussed earlier.

Specifically, and most germanely, what has been signed off for the 2026-27 budget reflects the pay deals that have already been agreed. There were risks at the time of that pay settlement. We made some assumptions about inflation—although that did not come down quite as quickly as we expected—and we made a judgment about pay policy at that point.

When we come to the pay deal for 2027-28, we will have to look at the overall funding position and at how that is reflected in the deals that are ultimately agreed. That will be a consideration for the principal accountable officer as part of the 2027-28 budget. At the time of the previous budget, ministers said that that would be the point at which the policy would be reviewed and reconsidered.

I anticipate that our successor committee will have you back here in a year’s time and that you are going to say pretty much the same thing, which is that, in hindsight, the deal was unrealistic and that we were right to say that it was optimistic. Where does public pay sit on your risk register?

We discuss that as an executive team. As you would imagine, quite a lot of co-ordination exists across the different sector pay bids—indeed, increasingly, unions make comparisons across different sectors. We, as well as the Government, need to do that, too. However, pay must be affordable in the overall envelope.

The policy has not been followed with regard to clawback, either. An overshoot in the first two years would have had to be clawed back in the subsequent year, but that did not happen, did it?

The final year has not been agreed yet.

According to the terms of the policy, that was meant to happen in the second year, but it did not.

Do you mean in relation to the pay that was agreed for 2025-2026?

The pay budget in the first year of the policy overshot the 3 per cent mark and, under the terms of your policy—the policy that was agreed between the chief accountable officer and the Government—the overshoot was meant to be clawed back. However, that did not happen.

The agreement was on a three-year basis, and there was a two-year deal as part of that, in that constraint.

Okay, we will leave it there, because I do not think that we are getting anywhere. There is a massive problem with 54 per cent of the Scottish budget, and I do not feel that we are getting any distance with it.

In evidence regarding direct awards of ferry contracts, your predecessor told the committee that they had had legal advice that those contracts were not to be awarded because they could not be awarded. What has changed?

Sorry?

There has been a direct award of ferry contracts to Ferguson Marine, but the committee was previously told that that would be impossible because such awards are illegal. What has changed in relation to the advice that you have had?

Ministers have expressed their intent around the four vessels—I refer you to the Deputy First Minister’s statement. A programme of assessments now needs to take place—legal and commercial assessments, and subsidy control—which also involves engagement with the Competition and Markets Authority. A series of checks needs to take place to ensure that the specific proposition complies with that legislation.

John-Paul Marks told the committee that the Scottish Government was

“of the view that, if a direct award were attempted, it would be subject to legal challenge and the likelihood would be that the challenge would be successful.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 March 2025; c 30.]

I do not know whether that was in relation to direct awards as a matter of principle or in relation to any specific vessels. I am saying that the specific and concrete proposition that we have in front of us will be subject to those checks. It is perfectly legitimate for ministers to announce that intention, pending the completion of that necessary due diligence.

Clearly, the direct award of contracts has been an issue of policy contention for many years. I am personally in favour of it if it is legal, but the committee has heard varying views, put to us by subsequent permanent secretaries, as to whether there is legality. I understand your point in relation to the particular detail of the contract. Could you write to the committee and clarify the difference between your predecessor’s position and yours?

I am not sighted on the context in which JP made those comments, so I will look into the matter. I am happy to write to you, Mr Marra.

Thank you.

Colleagues have touched a bit on the level of sickness in the Scottish civil service, which appears to be much higher than in almost any other part of the UK civil service. Is there a reason for that?

I worry about that. On a personal level, I worry about colleagues who are unwell. We clearly need to improve things.

This is not an excuse, but Scotland’s population health record as a whole is probably part of the picture. One of the important reasons why people should work together and be able to support one another is to get on top of some of the short-term pressures that are driven by stress. Our latest stats for the core civil service, which we are due to publish next week, will show an improvement.

We have taken a lot of action on the issue as an executive team. We have had discussions as a team, looking at the data that is attached to the individual directorates of most concern, which also form part of my monthly performance conversations with directors general. We review the specific directorates and the action that has been taken. We have some good examples of individual business areas that have really invested in the issue and improved the situation— for example, I pay tribute to the marine directorate.

We are determined to improve the situation and to provide the kind of support that means that people can be at work.

What particular directorates are having challenges?

I do not have the list in front of me, but there is a range. There is not a particular cluster in one DG family, for example, that would give cause for concern. It is a little bit spread out around the organisation and it is a mix of short-term factors and some longer-term, more complicated factors, so I do not think that it is right to start picking on individual teams in isolation.

12:00

You have given us one where you think there has been improvement, but you are not prepared to say which ones you think have problems.

That is because more than one of them are having that struggle and it is important to have the context around it before we start doing that.

That would be good, but the context around this is that the record at the moment is significantly worse than it is in almost any other department in the whole UK civil service. I think that the figure is 10.8 days lost per person annually, and only a small department in Wales that has fewer than 100 staff has a marginally comparable figure.

On your point about Scotland’s health record, the comparable figure for the Scotland Office is 6.9 days lost, which is below the figure for the civil service as a whole. Why is the Scotland Office so different from the Scottish Government?

First, a lot of Scotland Office employees are based in London. Secondly, it is a much smaller organisation. On the 10.8 figure, again, I think that there is some confusion there. This became public just this morning as I was preparing to come in, so I am not fully over the detail, but I think that that figure relates to a broader definition of the devolved civil service that we touched on earlier, which also includes agencies and public bodies. The figure for the core civil service is nearer 8.5 annual working days lost. That still needs to come down and we are working hard to do that. However, there is a bit of a discrepancy around those figures, which bleeds into the comparative data.

On the difference between the 8.5 figure and the 10.8 figure, what is inflating the figure so significantly?

Again, this came into the public domain quite late on this morning as I was preparing to come in, so I am not sighted on all of the detail. Those are not Scottish Government figures. I think that the figures are produced at Westminster. My hunch is that it relates to a broader definition of the devolved civil service which includes a number of public bodies as well, but I do not know that for sure. If it would be helpful, I am very happy to explain it in writing later.

There are an awful lot of public bodies to count, I suppose, in that regard. Can you supply further information to the committee on that basis?

Of course.

It is a matter of concern, not just in relation to the public finances, but in relation to the welfare of the individuals involved, which you just mentioned.

Yes, Mr Marra, and I completely concur with that, and we are focusing on what we need to do to improve it.

Well, I hope so. Thank you.

Permanent secretary, you will be aware that, in October last year, there was a bit of controversy about the fact that, at the same time as the Scottish Government produced its document about the future of pensions, a social media post was issued which said that

“independence would allow us to improve the pensions system”.

Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with that statement, do you think that it is appropriate that you, as the permanent secretary, signed off that post? Should you be doing that when you are in charge of an impartial civil service that has to work with a Government of any colour? Is that an appropriate action for the permanent secretary to take?

I think that that was a communications product of a much longer paper, which, again, was not produced in isolation. A number of papers were produced. The civil service is there to support the Government of the day. The point that you make about impartiality is important and one aspect of a pre-election period is that the civil service engages with opposition parties that wish to engage. That is an opportunity to demonstrate our impartiality and our preparedness to support a Government made up of whoever the electorate appoints, but we support the ministers of the day. On the specific point, that was a bit of communications collateral attached to a much broader range of papers, which are entirely a matter of Government policy.

Do you understand, as permanent secretary, why there might be questions raised about that situation not standing up to the impartiality that we expect of the civil service?

I understand that it has been hotly debated. It has been a matter of agreement between successive people in my role and the cabinet secretary in London that the civil service is there to support the Government of the day. That communication was entirely in line with that. Of course, I understand that not everyone agrees with that characterisation.

I am not sure that people will disagree about what was said. I am asking whether it is the role of a permanent secretary who is in charge of an impartial civil service to authorise that kind of political social media post.

I think that it was a statement of Government policy. I do not think that it was a party-political statement.

I have just one area to ask about, which is public inquiries. As you probably know, the committee did an inquiry into inquiries and published a report. My question is whether timescales and budgets can be controlled. A specific case is that when the UK Government launched its inquiry into what are commonly called grooming gangs—networks of child sexual abuse and exploitation—it put a budget and time limit on it, but the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills was not keen to do the same for Scotland. Can you clarify the legal position and what powers we have in that space?

I cannot give specifics on the legal powers in that specific example. If I may, I commend the committee’s work on public inquiries, because it has been of genuine value. I know that there was a debate in the chamber a couple of weeks back, with the Deputy First Minister leading for the Government, and the Deputy First Minister has agreed to update the committee in writing before dissolution.

The obvious tension that I can see from my technocratic standpoint is that inquiries often scrutinise the actions of the executive, so it is potentially problematic for the executive to be seen to be putting constraints on the scope of those inquiries. I hope that it is not an insurmountable problem. You have given the example of the UK Government doing something, but we are reflecting on these matters and the Deputy First Minister will update the committee, as promised, before 26 March.

The Government funds other bodies that are pretty independent, such as Audit Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland. It therefore seems to be possible to create a set-up in which people have to work within fixed budgets but are still independent.

As I say, we are reflecting on that to see whether we can find a way through. The findings of the committee on the cost of public inquiries—and the uncontrolled nature of the cost that you describe—are compelling in the fiscal environment that we have been discussing this morning. We are open to thinking about whether there is a way through, rather than saying that it cannot be done.

That concludes questions from the committee, but I have a couple of questions to wind up with. At the start, you touched on the national performance framework, which no one else in the committee did. Are we flogging a dead horse with the national performance framework? It does not seem to be the vehicle for the positive change in service delivery that we had hoped for. It almost seems as though buy-in is achieved only by dragging people kicking and screaming to the table. There does not seem to be any great enthusiasm for it.

This committee has done a tonne of work on the national performance framework. You probably know that Craig Hoy and Michael Marra had a visit to St Andrew’s house to discuss it in some detail and where we go with it. How are we going to make the NPF something that really lives in the public sector? At the moment, it does not seem to.

I watched your meeting with Sarah Davidson, Professor Cairney, Ian Elliott and colleagues. I am of the school of thought that there is still great value in the NPF. I think that, at the very least, the symbolic statement that Government and public resources must work to achieve impact in the real world is an important governing principle. The committee might not believe it, but it is possible for Governments to engage in the occasional moment of introspection or a self-realising process. However, the point that the national performance framework makes that we must devote our efforts to achieving outcomes and impact is important.

I think that part of what we need is a vision that is, slightly counterintuitively, a little less holistic. If we have something that is too holistic and too general, it becomes hard to make decisions based on doing X as opposed to Y or prioritising Z as opposed to A. We talked about comparative approaches earlier on; a number of countries in the world have set a kind of meso-level strategy—a bit of jargon, perhaps, but it means something that sits between the high level and long term, and the short term.

It is very valuable for Scotland to be clear about the risks and opportunities specific to us that we will face in the years ahead. We touched on population health earlier, and I would also note the evidence that suggests that the economic opportunities of the renewables industry in the North Sea are absolutely vast. We need a sense of what the opportunities are, so that we can go full speed in behind them.

Therefore, I think it important that we have a vision that is more manageable and more specific to Scotland’s circumstances, and then we need discipline within Government at those key moments where the NPF can really play its part. Early in the next Administration would definitely be one of those moments, and budgets would be another example where we would be self-consciously using it.

The final area that I would highlight is the tracking of performance, which, again, we have touched on implicitly over the course of the morning. The presence of indicators that tell us where we are, on the way to achieving outcomes, is very important. I want to ensure that future iterations of the consolidated accounts draw on the data sitting in the performance framework to give an objective account of the Government’s performance. I am a believer in the NPF, if you like, but we need a thoughtful approach to it that emphasises utility, and which results in the thing actually getting used, instead of having something that is too much on the visionary side.

Thank you.

I have to return to the issue of staff coming in to the office for 40 per cent of their working week. Frankly, I think that many people watching this would be bewildered that no monitoring takes place and that there seem to be no repercussions for people if they just ignore the policy of having to come in two days a week. I find that quite astonishing. When I think about my years in the private sector, I can just imagine what would have happened if I had told my boss that I was not going to be coming in. It just seems really bizarre to me.

What is the situation with the civil service in other parts of the UK? Does it follow similar policies, or is it completely different? Do those civil servants come in 20, 40 or 60 per cent of the time? Is there any monitoring or whatever? Where are we relative to other jurisdictions?

We are in a very similar position to Wales, as I understand it. I can check the detail, but certainly, at the point of formulation, we swapped notes and I think that around 40 per cent was the expectation. I do not think that it has the sort of hard edge to it that you have described. In UK Government departments, the figure is 60 per cent, I think, and it is monitored more rigorously.

I tried in my comments to Mr Hoy to explain the strategic context to all of this. If, ultimately, we want to go harder on this, it will trigger conflict within the organisation and with unions. We might well conclude that that is something that we wish to do, but we are not there yet. We want to continue to persuade people that this is a positive thing to do, and to work in partnership with them.

However, it will have to happen, and the data, incomplete as it is—and with the addition of anecdotal data and what we are seeing and experiencing on a daily basis—tells me that we are moving in the right direction. We will take stock with an incoming Government after the election to see whether this is something we want to continue or whether we want to take an approach with a harder edge. However, that will come with consequences.

The private sector is reducing the amount of working from home. The Economist had an interesting article, saying that, although working from home initially boosts productivity, it falls after six months, with a significant decline after a year or two. I have studied one person—myself—and I do not work anything like as hard when I am at home as when I am actually in my office, whether it be my constituency office or elsewhere. When I am actually at my desk, I can work for hours. Is any research being done on the comparative levels of productivity between the two modes of work?

Productivity varies, depending on the nature of the work. As Lesley Fraser mentioned earlier, there are many different roles in the civil service. We have 21 professions, and people are doing different kinds of work. It is easy to track this sort of thing if you are in a call centre-type job or if you are producing identifiable outputs, but it is harder if you are in a policy-making space. I do not think there is authoritative data on that across the piece, but I do know that the Office for National Statistics is looking at it.

Personally, I have no issue with anything that you have said about the desirability of this. I have just tried to explain the approach that we have taken, and our prioritising of a positive relationship with union colleagues. However, we will need to see the benefits that come from it, and it might well be something that we review after the election.

12:15

Thank you. Before we wind up, do you have any final points that you want to make to the committee? Are there any areas that we have not touched on but which you would like us to have touched on, or is there anything else that you want to emphasise about the work of you and your team?

I sensed in the evidence session that I watched that there was a question mark for the future Parliament over the value and utility of a committee such as this. Various witnesses reflected on that and, if I may and if it is appropriate, I would like to offer my view.

There is real value to having a committee that looks specifically at public administration. I imagine that there will always be a finance committee of some description or other, but the focus, challenge and scrutiny that you have brought in the two sessions that I have had with you and in the sessions that you had with my predecessors, and the extensive work that you have done on the effectiveness of decision making, the national performance framework and so on, are of real value. I assure you that we in the professional civil service read what you produce and take it on board, and it plays into our work. I would therefore sound what is probably a note of gratitude and, if it is not inappropriate for me to say so, I think that there will be customers for this kind of work sitting in professional government in the future.

Thank you. I think that many of your responses today have been very helpful to the committee in clarifying a number of areas, but I have to say that I—and, I am sure, colleagues—have felt an element of disappointment that there has been a wee bit of a-ducking and a-diving and a-bobbing and a-weaving with regard to some of the numeric issues that we have asked about. I realise that you might feel that you are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the issue that I just raised of people coming back to work, but these are issues that the public and others are generally concerned about. I would hope that you realise that, when we ask questions specifically about numbers, it is quite frustrating not to be given a specific number or even parameters. That has come up a number of times today. I hope that, in future and in some of the follow-ups that we will get to what has been discussed today, we will get a wee bit more clarity on those things. It helps everyone if we can get direct answers to direct questions, wherever possible—and if it is not possible at the time, I hope that there can be some follow-up.

It was my intention to respond candidly and openly to the best of my ability, and I am sorry if some of the questions did not involve that. I will look liberally at those areas where we were not able to provide the numbers that you requested and provide a full written response to each of them. However, my intent was to be entirely candid and open with the committee.

You were candid, but I think that you felt that you could not go as far as the committee wanted.

Thank you very much for your evidence. There will be a short break before we go on to the next item on the agenda.

12:18

Meeting suspended.

12:20

On resuming—