Chamber and committees

Some injustice might have happened five or 10 years ago, but that should not necessarily mean that people in my constituency cannot call on a police officer because a resource has been dedicated to an inquiry. There will always be a cost, even if you take it out of the central budget—it means that it cannot be spent anywhere else—but there seems to be a particular unfairness there.

In your introduction, you talked about using place to full effect, which I found intriguing. Can you expand a wee bit on what you meant by that?

Ministers might wish to set a target, but surely that would be based on the advice that you and your colleagues would give them about what is deliverable. I use the word “optimal” because people do not just want to see a reduction in the number of people if that has an adverse impact on the delivery of services. People want to see what is perceived to be more efficient and more effective delivery of those services.

We have seen in the indicators that the Scottish Government is progressing in some areas and staying still in some, but in others it is falling backwards. What is being done to address that?

I am sorry, but there is never any shortage of excuses. The bottom line is this: if a deadline is given, surely one would expect it to be met on occasion—say, seven or eight times out of 10. However, it does not seem to happen anywhere near that often. Saying that something will happen by a certain time only for it not to happen appears to be a cultural thing. We, on this committee, have seen that kind of drift occur in a number of areas. I do not have to recount them—I see Liz Smith and others nodding. It is all about changing the culture to ensure that when someone says that something will be done, it will be done.

Right—okay. Sounds good.

Maybe there is too much optimism about when things can be delivered. If they cannot be delivered by a certain date, people should perhaps err on the side of caution instead of being overoptimistic. If you say that something is going to be delivered in May and it is delivered in April, people are happy; however, if you say that it is going to be delivered in March and it is delivered in April, they are unhappy. Perhaps there is an issue with optimism bias in that respect.

I know that colleagues are keen to come in, but I have one last question. You touched on the issue of spending in your statement, and you talked about it with regard to delivery discipline. There are still issues with that. Ensuring that we are not comparing apples with oranges across portfolios when the budget document comes out is an issue that has been raised with the finance secretary on a number of occasions, and a wee bit more work has to be done on that. Indeed, things that I have raised in previous years were still in the last document, so I want to emphasise that a wee bit.

We are in a situation in which we pass the budget and then, a week later, we get the spring revisions for the previous year. Often, the changes are quite significant, but there are also changes that are repeated year after year. As a committee, we argue with cabinet secretaries about the policy intention and the delivery intention. Are you working with ministers to ensure not only that spending budgets are aligned as tightly as possible, but that we do not have that groundhog day situation every year?

Good morning, and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2025 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Ross Greer, who is, once again, battling through amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. However, he hopes to be with us fully once more post-recess.

Our first agenda item 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; Gregor Irwin, director general economy; and 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.

Craig Hoy has a brief question.

Thank you very much for that.

We will have a five-minute break before we move into private session, to allow our witnesses and broadcasting and official report staff to leave.

You will be aware that this committee has been carrying out an investigation into the cost-effectiveness of public inquiries, given their monumental costs and the many years that they seem to take. In the past week, we have seen demands for public inquiries into grooming and ferries from some Opposition politicians. No doubt, there will be plenty of others as we progress.

We will produce a report in the autumn, and there is an area that I want to ask you about. We have had compelling evidence that the current situation, whereby a specific budget can be severely impacted, is proving detrimental to services. The opportunity cost to the police or national health service of having a big chunk of its budget dedicated to an inquiry over a number of years means, quite frankly, that the people who would expect to benefit from those services are impacted, as the NHS and the police have made quite clear. Would you be sympathetic to the creation of a budget for public inquiries—regardless of what the inquiry is, how long it takes or what it costs—that is separate from the budgets of the organisations that are involved in the inquiries?